smerriman

Neither has any connection to friends. An invisible table won't show up in the main list of tables. An invisible login means you won't show up in the list of online users for anyone; however this doesn't guarantee true invisibility as you may still be seen as active when sitting at a table (or if someone clicks on your profile).

You bid Soloway because you expected your partner's 1♣ opening bid showed solid clubs? Not only are the odds heavily against this (and you are in massive trouble when he doesn't), 1♥ works just as well when partner *does* have solid clubs.

Where was she playing? Only certain types of games show up there (mainly the main bridge club + some tournaments, and even then not total points ones), eg ACBL don't allow Virtual Club games to be recorded.

You can certainly misuse English as much as you like, though you'd look just as silly as if you told someone you played Blackwood's and Stayman's (or as you likely know them as, Easley's and Sam's).

Can't imagine bidding anything other than 1♥. If I bid Michaels (no apostrophe btw), I won't have a clue whether to pass, raise, or correct on my next bid.

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Law 24 refers to Law 50, which refers to Law 57. Is there some rule that says that if X refers to Y, and Y refers to Z, then can you never apply Z in the situation of X? For example, Law 32 about double/redouble out of rotation says to see Law 36, which refers to Law 72C - the director is certainly allowed to use that law, despite there being no reference to it in Law 32. While I don't disagree about which law should be applied, I don't follow the logic in that one sentence at all.

I've already told you twice I would adjust for that, despite your repeated implications that I'm saying not to. I'm amazed you can read the rules so clearly but not my posts. I can't be bothered arguing semantics anymore; Law 50 is the most sensible rule to apply; if a single word would convince you otherwise, fine, change it, who cares.

Yes, I follow rule 50. Law 57, as is very clear by its wording, adjusts for situations where you have played before your partner was meant to play. You very well know that, despite trying to make it appear not obvious.

Did you read what I wrote? I specifically said that if they gained an advantage, they would be penalised with a weighted score based on East would have bid otherwise. Which part of my post suggested I advocated no penalty?

? That would be my bid too; I don't see an alternative - unless of course you play NFB, in which case 2♥ was right to begin with.

You are told to see law 57; you see that it cannot possibly apply to this situation. None of that is true in the slightest. If you get any form of advantage out of leading prior to the auction completing, then you would be penalised with an weighted score based on what your partner might have done differently if you hadn't (50E).

This wouldn't be fair on the pool without GIB, or those who did well against GIB in bringing their score forward (or on poor GIB :))

Yes, it'll be a scored as an 8-8 tie. This is the second time we've had two GIBs make round 2 (happened in event 15 as well). Non-best-hand MP is clearly GIB's best format - in Event 16, there was just one GIB among 30 entrants, who went all the way to the final before losing to icycookie.

You'd probably need to convince your partner to relearn it if he tried that and got a 5N response :) Taking it slowly and cuebidding is the best way to go.

Round 1 has finished - while twisterrz's two remaining challenges + pilowsky's challenge against GIB were not reported, they have been completed and added. Round 2 has been added. Cherdano is unluckily eliminated from Group A due to losing his head to head match with GIB (whose clone managed to knock me out at the last moment also). Both GIBs therefore qualify for Round 2. If you have challenges remaining against both of them, your first challenge will be scored against GIB1, with your second challenge against GIB 2. The deadline for round 2 is September 4, 11:59pm EST.

For one, it would be better if you play that a control bid promises first OR second round control; it makes cuebidding far simpler. However, whatever you play, you must answer truthfully. While you know your partner has a void, your partner also knows their own hand, and should only be bidding 4NT if they know what to do with a truthful response. If it were vital to distinguish keycards inside/outside of hearts, they could either continue control bidding, or use voidwood.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a rhetorical question and you weren't looking for actual answers. Sure, in a legal sense the wording could be improved, but your ruling simply is not acceptable based on the wording in rule 57, whether that is 'more or less removed' than another option. You could argue that there is no possible ruling, and I wouldn't be able to disagree with you, but if I had to make one, I'd choose the one that was completely obviously the intention. It's so obvious what is meant to happen here, it really is simply waste of time arguing otherwise - and to be honest, other than you, does anyone really care about this? I'd rather the rulemakers focus on things that actually matter.

Partner seems too weak for a 2♥ response. But the major fit is always going to be preferable. You have no idea whether partner has diamonds stopped, or if they have another distributional hand, or have slam interest, etc, and if you don't show heart support now, they'll never believe you'll have it later (if you're fortunate enough to bid again).

If the law had said: "When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, if one exists" then sure. But referring to "the current trick" is simply enough evidence for me that the current trick must exist before this rule can be applied, and must indeed differ from "the next trick".

The user interface is pretty bad. What will be happening is indeed that people are clicking on Explain multiple times. But it's easy to see why - the box stays on their screen indefinitely, and they're trying to get rid of it. It's completely unobvious that the only way to make it disappear is to click in the box anywhere *except* on the Explain button, and not too surprising that people are instead trying to click the only button they can see (especially when it 'works' and the box disappears).

How is this relevant? D is totally irrelevant, since the offender did not become declarer or dummy. E is relevant in the the card becomes a penalty card; it tells you to refer to Law 50 for how that penalty card is used from that point forwards, which then theoretically tells to you refer to rule 57, even though it's obvious law 57 does not apply to this situation.here.

"A happened before B happened" is false if B has not and never will happen (because the definition is undefined), regardless of whether A happened. If you believe the supreme court would rule that Law 57 would be applied, they would equally rule that Law 57 does not state what to do in this situation. You clearly know what the law intended and are arguing for the same of semantics, so you have to be consistent and follow those semantics the whole way through.

You can pin the 9 of spades on the second round.

SB is incorrect. Since we are clearly distinguishing 'lead' from 'play' we need to ensure we satisfy the conditions of Law 57 precisely: When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick This is not the situation, because the 'current' trick is trick 1, and the 'next' trick is trick 2. West has not led to trick 2. Alternatively, the 'next' trick could be defined as trick 1, in which case the 'current' trick is undefined, so he definitely hasn't led 'before' it. , or plays out of turn before his partner has played, This not true because West has led, not played. Therefore, everyone should sit at the table indefinitely until someone realises that it's obvious what the intent of the law was (namely, rule 57 is about what to do when your partner was meant to choose their card before you), and then they can get back to actually playing bridge.

Normal human beings congratulate you on making the correct bid even on the times it doesn't work out, rather than try to sabotage their own scores and confidence.