RMB1

In EBU regulations and conditions of contest (for BBO events), I have written "alerted/explained" - it is clumsy but rams home the point that all alerts should be accompanied by an explanation. But "alerted/explained as" is shorter than "alerted and simultaneously explained as". (Instead of "alerted as" or "alerted, and subsequently explained as"

Last reason: BBO is unlikely to respond to requests written all in capitals. :)

That's what I meant; but if that's not what happens the text can be changed.

When I wrote this I wasn't sure if TD could give only 40/50/60 (an artificial score) or any percentage (which some scoring programmes allow), so I just used a vague term.

Matches in my local league invariably involve at least one pair where both players are in the same household. So electronic communications is not necessary - shouting will do.

It is always frustrating when you have more cards in the opponents' fit than one of the opponents, especially when they over ruff you in the suit.

I get the occasional email: "I last played bridge N weeks ago and I was annoyed when an opponent did X. The more I dwell on it, the more it annoys me, can you help?"

You can click 'Back' or some similar button, and return to the previous menu, or click on your BBOname above the (next) hand and you will become a kibitzer at the table. In either case you will be asked 'Do you want to leave?'.

What you say may be logical but at school many of us were taught a distinction between decimal places and significant figures, and tedious exercises rounding numbers to 3d.p. (decimal places) or to 4s.f. sigificant figures.

I don't think ♠7 was a lead from dummy. ♠A lead is withdrawn. I think declarer can withdraw ♠7 play, if so ♠3 is withdrawn and becomes a penalty card. West is on lead with restrictions. Declarer can instead choose to not withdraw ♠7 and it becomes a lead out of turn, accepted by ♠3 play, and play continues.

In this auction do we know what double means, and do we know what the UI from a slow double suggests?

The OP is named '26B2' - there is no Law 26B2 because there is no Law 26B1.

Not 'require'. Law 26B was edited, as follows: When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead) either: 1. require the offender’s partner to lead any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender; or 2. prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

It doesn't matter whether North is expert, his claim makes it clear he not going to play as an expert on this hand.

From 1899?