[1eyedjack]

When registering as a sub it would be nice to be presented with a checkbox to disable/enable auto-sub (ie bypassing the invitation).

[lucky_dom]

Couldn't this cause more problems than it solves if you are subbing in someone who has gone to make a coffee. Then you have to find a sub for them, etc. etc.

Dom

[1eyedjack]

lucky_dom, on Jun 6 2004, 07:25 AM, said:

Couldn't this cause more problems than it solves if you are subbing in someone who has gone to make a coffee. Then you have to find a sub for them, etc. etc.

Dom

The suggestion is designed to overcome precisely that problem, not create it.

Under current arrangements that scenario already exists.

They can (and I think should, as a matter of routine) "invite" the sub to play. If the sub has gone for a coffee he does not respond to the invitation so some other sub is invited. Not ideal but preferable to the TD auto-subbing you into the game without an invitation, which is currently possible and frequently done.

Under my suggestion the sub would have as an option (which need not be exercised), at the point of registering as a sub, the ability to deny the TD the discretion of auto-subbing you in without first issuing an invitation.

Could you clarify please why you think this suggestion creates more problems than it solves?

[lucky_dom]

Because people would go for the auto-sub option and then go and make a coffee or start reading the paper and don't see that they've been subbed in until a few minutes after it's happened. For people who are sat looking at BBO the invite process isn't a problem. For people who are browsing the net or whatever, the invite process ensures that they don't end up being subbed into a tourney while not there.

Dom

[lucky_dom]

Ok, I've just re-read all that, and I think I had your position reversed. I thought that was how it worked already, and you were suggesting allowing auto-subbing, as opposed to auto-subbing being the norm and you suggeting invite subbing.

Stupid me!
Dom

[1eyedjack]

lucky_dom, on Jun 6 2004, 08:42 AM, said:

Ok, I've just re-read all that, and I think I had your position reversed. I thought that was how it worked already, and you were suggesting allowing auto-subbing, as opposed to auto-subbing being the norm and you suggeting invite subbing.

Stupid me!
Dom

I think that "inviting" is the norm, even now. But auto-subbing is an option that is sometimes taken (probably a minority of the time). But even if it is a minority problem, it could be eliminated if the sub were granted that discretion (which discretion he need not take, of course, if he is happy to be auto-subbed).

[EarlPurple]

it would be useful at least if the sub invite went to the forefront of the screen.

Often I register for sub then do other things like post here, only to find I was given a sub-invite hidden underneath my browser.

On one occasion I found I'd been subbed and and they were complaining because I hadn't responded. I then bid and was waiting for partner who was not responding, only to find myself booted out again. wasn't allowed to then "talk" to the director because I was no longer in the tourney.

Sorry, but if I'm going to register as a sub then I'm most likely to be doing other things while I'm waiting.

[1eyedjack]

EarlPurple, on Jun 13 2004, 07:11 AM, said:

it would be useful at least if the sub invite went to the forefront of the screen.

Often I register for sub then do other things like post here, only to find I was given a sub-invite hidden underneath my browser.

On one occasion I found I'd been subbed and and they were complaining because I hadn't responded. I then bid and was waiting for partner who was not responding, only to find myself booted out again. wasn't allowed to then "talk" to the director because I was no longer in the tourney.

Sorry, but if I'm going to register as a sub then I'm most likely to be doing other things while I'm waiting.

Precisely so. There are *two* enhancements that could be made to the system. Neither need be pursued to the exclusion of the other. One enhancement, that has been mentioned in other threads, is for the "invite" dialog box to be "always on top", possibly with a sound alarm. The other enhancement (this thread) is to prevent auto-subbing, where disabled by the sub at his discretion on registration.

[McBruce]

I cannot understand why some people sign up for the list then refuse an invite to sub for my own tournaments, which are individuals where you play only one board before switching partners. I see no reason for this and I have deliberately auto-subbed in order to boot the non-responsive sub. You're really not helping at all if you sign up for a sub list and then leave.

[1eyedjack]

McBruce, on Jun 15 2004, 06:57 PM, said:

I cannot understand why some people sign up for the list then refuse an invite to sub for my own tournaments, which are individuals where you play only one board before switching partners. I see no reason for this and I have deliberately auto-subbed in order to boot the non-responsive sub. You're really not helping at all if you sign up for a sub list and then leave.

I don't understand this post at all. But then I have never seen the problem from the TD viewpoint, and there may be software limitations that I am unaware of.

I have probably misread it but there are three scenarios that I think you might be getting at and/or solutions that you are suggesting:

1) Sub "A" is invited to play. Sub "A" does not respond. So you force him into the game.

I do not think this can be what you are intending to say. If he does not respond to the invitation then you are not solving any problems by sitting him at a table. You will just have to kill him and get another sub in anyway.

2) Sub "A" is already playing but then for no apparent reason freezes up. So you boot him and get Sub "B" instead.

OK, sure you have to boot Sub "A", but I do not see why this means that Sub "B" must be auto-subbed rather than invited.

3) Sub "A" is invited to play but does not respond to the invitation. So you auto-sub Sub "B" instead.

Again, I agree that the invitation to Sub "A" must be cancelled, but why not just tranfer the invatition to Sub "B"? Why is it necessary to auto-sub Sub "B" simply to cancel or transfer the invitation from Sub "A"?

If scenarios (2) and (3) are due to software limitations then these limitations need to be addressed.

As to the motives of the non-responsive players, I think it safe to assume that they have simply not seen the invitation (if invited) or not seen that they have been autosubbed in (if autosubbed); Either because they are browsing the net (hence the requests in other threads for sound alarms and always-on-top notifications) or because they are away from the computer momentarily (in which case it is irritating to the TD but far less irritating if he does not respond to an invite than if he gets autosubbed and doesn't respond at the table. He can avoid at least the latter by disabling the autosub feature).

[McBruce]

Let's first repeat that my tournaments are indys and you play only one board with a partner, and you are limited to SAYC. There is no reason for a player to refuse a sub based on the person he is about to play with in these circumstances. I would further say that if you sign up as a sub in ANY tournament you shouldn't be refusing an invite because your prospective partner is not 'expert' or 'world class.' Club TDs send people home if they won't play with the only other loose player...then they make sure that the other loose player gets into the game. Subs who wait for good players are no help at all.

Now, when there are no subs on the list, a message is sent to the lobby and subs usually follow. If there is one or more on the list who will not accept being subbed, I have to type the message myself, which takes time away from the faultless players who are waiting. It is virtually always faster to auto-sub the player in, see if he plays, and if he doesn't, call for another. Not only that, the auto-subbed player is off the sub list.

When I sub for a tournament, I stay at the tourney area, not kibitzing, and wait--I don't check the web or go to the bathroom. I actually think that people just forget to take themselves off the sub list when they give up waiting or start doing something else. I'll stop auto-subbing when I get a button that can remove a player from a sub list. That would solve the other problem that currently exists: a player can play 6 boards in an unclocked tournament, get booted, sign up for the sub list, and get back in on board 3 at a slower table. Now he has three boards to play he has already seen. I'd like to be able to boot this player from the sub list, but I cannot under the current setup.

[1eyedjack]

OK, you seem to be saying that there are benefits to the TD in autosubbing rather than inviting. I don't quite understand that but I am perfectly willing to accept that this is the case.

There is no reason for your choice (of autosubbing) to be denied you, the TD. However you would only (under my suggestion) be able to select for autosubbing those subs who have not selected the option to disable that feature upon registration. This might (slightly) limit the population of subs available to you to autosub. But provided that there is at least one sub who has NOT disabled this feature you the TD are not disadvantaged.

By default, the "disable autosub" option would itself be disabled... ie it would require positive action by the sub, on registration, to disable autosubbing.

I would not expect the abuse of this suggestion purely to enable the sub to pick and choose particular partners (especially in indy events). Nor would I expect subs to adopt this choice if they are responding to a lobby request for subs, as they can reasonably expect an immediate invitation and would not be off doing something else.