[timouthy]

Since this is purely a BBO and not ACBL policy/decision, here's what I think is the right thing to do. After a certain amount of hands have been played by a sub, BBO should ask the sub if they want to play the remainder of the hands in exchange for an entry fee from the sub. If the sub agrees, the original player cannot return, annnnnnnnnd BBO, should reimburse the original player that never showed up. The amount of hands needed to be played by the sub should not be disclosed to the remaining player. for obvious reasons.

[johnu]

jillybean, on 2026-July-10, 11:24, said:

Cheating doesn’t prove masterpoints are valuable, it proves that some players have fragile egos and an unhealthy obsession with status symbols.
For the majority of players master points are a measure of bum time on seat.

If ACBL masterpoints weren't "valuable", people wouldn't seek out tournaments with fees to play in. They could easily play in the main bridge club or other free areas of BBO where there are no entry fees and no masterpoints.

Also, cheating in an ACBL tournament risks suspension and getting put on the disciplined lists under your real name, while cheating in a "free" practice game only risks expulsion from BBO on that user name, which is basically no punishment as it's trivial to create a new user account and continue playing (and cheating).

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2026-July-10, 10:22, said:

Well, yes, of course they could.

But OP's point is (very clearly, if you read the links in the post you quoted) that that's not what is happening.

According to the OP, he's claiming to be a pretty good player that consistently gets good results as a substitute, so there's no logic for the paying player to get rid of the OP because he's hopeless. Of course, if the OP was really hopeless, there wouldn't be any masterpoints at stake if he played most of the tournament.

[jillybean]

You are of course free to believe anything you like.

[mycroft]

Wow, incredible selective quoting. Absolutely top notch. Also not relevant.

OPs skill is not relevant (but I agree, is probably quite good - especially with the obvious handicap). Again, I salute him for volunteering to do something most people (including me) would run screaming from, except on a one-off basis.

Whether someone would prefer him to the partner they signed up to play with is an amusing question, but also not relevant.

Whether the rules on assigning masterpoints for results should be changed, is certainly relevant. I happen to be ambivalent on the topic, for reasons that are both obvious from posting and obvious from - other posting :-).

But the conspiracy theory? Is absolutely bonkers. I can't imagine anyone willing to be the straight actor (without, as I said, pro-level treatment), and I can't imagine, should it be happening, that it isn't found out and sent to C&E (or BBO straight up banning the players, even given the amount of money they would be receiving from them, or both) within months - another reason the payout would have to be something special.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2026-July-11, 11:57, said:

Wow, incredible selective quoting. Absolutely top notch. Also not relevant.

OPs skill is not relevant (but I agree, is probably quite good - especially with the obvious handicap). Again, I salute him for volunteering to do something most people (including me) would run screaming from, except on a one-off basis.

100% relevant. Just addressing one of your misstatements, not all of them. OP's skill is absolutely relevant, otherwise:
1) There would be no masterpoints to consider if he was a terrible player
2) If the paying pair was engaged in the alleged "scheme", the OP would be replaced at the table if he was a terrible player because of point #1, and to avoid punishing the remaining player having to play with a terrible player.
3) Whatever the motivations, I also salute the OP for volunteering to be a substitute player which helps the tournaments continue when a player drops out.