[epeeist]

When I subbed today in a tournament (an ACBL tournament, if that matters), I appeared as declarer in a 6♠ contract, with half the tricks played. I had no idea whether, for instance, the q♦ or j♣ in dummy were good or not, etc. It was a badly-bid slam (not by me, ) so my ignorance didn't really affect the matchpoint result in this case.

Now, when I sub, I think I owe it to those in the tournament to play to the best of my ability (limited though it may be... ), to avoid skewing results, though I don't care so much about my own placing (when I've subbed). However, in a case like this, a sub who has no idea what's been played (except on the most recent trick) is not likely to do well, especially if the contract can only be made on a squeeze or endplay or the like. Or contrariwise, when subbing for a defender, even something as basic as which suit did partner make the opening lead in?

On the other side, I can recall being a defender in a NT contract in which declarer had established his/her winners in a suit. Then went red, got subbed, and new declarer had no idea what was good or not, and proceeded to go down several tricks in an easily-makeable game.

One can also imagine, there might be circumstances -- say, where a defendant made a deceptive play so declarer thought a finesse was good or something -- where a new sub comes in, and not knowing the history, makes the contract that the original declarer would likely not have made.

Are these results for which an adjustment should be requested (more out of fairness to _others_ in the tournament, especially if it's a big result at IMPs or a small tournament), or is it just something to live with? I thought about asking opponents when one subs, but it hardly seems fair or reasonable to ask the opponents, "Having subbed, what was played the first 6 tricks? Or if you don't remember, just let me know whether the k♥ and q♠ in dummy are good... ).

[guggie]

Come on, where do we play for? Is this about playing bridge or about getting ACBL points? I think it is not more than normal to fill a sub in on previous tricks, and I think opps should do that. You will never be able to play the hand as if you started to play it, but it is nonsense to let a sub make silly mistakes because of not knowing about previous tricks (i.e., how many rounds of trumps drawn, other suits played, lead).

[paulhar]

Maybe this should be 'suggestions for the software', but wouldn't it be nice if a sub got to see a recap of the play?

This might also be useful in the Main Bridge Club. Countless number of times I have popped into an empty seat in the middle of a hand. Requests to redeal have been refused or ignored. I usually just end up leaving but I look like the nonsocial one. Then having to wait a few more minutes for an empty seat opposite a partner whose profile looks compatible with mine. I just don't understand people expecting you to play out a hand not knowing about it.

[McBruce]

Attention TDs. It's your job to ensure subs are not taken advantage of in this way. If the hand is clearly going to be making five or down three or whatever, adjust the result rather than letting the sub make a mistake based on not being there from the start. If the result is still in doubt, ask the other players to let the sub know what has been played. If the players refuse to give information, adjust in favour of the sub and wait for the opponents to argue. They learn quickly that this is not a fair edge to seek.