[p_t_red]

Under reporting GIB bugs someone said: "It never forgets its own system".
That is definitely not the case.
I have repeatedly found that I click on all the possible responses and none of them match my hand.
Even when we are using a convention.
Let's see. I lost the hand, but it went:
1S P 2S P
2NT (showing shortness somewhere) P 3C (asking for shortness) Dbl

Now I click on every one of my bids and none of them show the shortness.
How does the double eliminate the convention when all my responses are
still available? Now I have no way to show my hand.

Thanks,
Peter (P_T_RED)

P.S.
And will the programmer's ever learn where dummy's trumps go (i.e. on the left, this is never correct when West is dummy)?

[smerriman]

There are lots of places where doubles mess up auctions unfortunately. It's nothing to do with "forgetting", but simply that the database defines continuations to 3♣ P rather than 3♣ (P|D) like it should. Chalk this one up as another easy to fix bug, but bugs aren't being fixed so you have to live with it

The latter is a non-issue IMO. Law 41d was not written with graphical interfaces in mind where screen space is limited (esp on mobile, which uses an identical GUI - the old standalone desktop version used to lay out cards in separate columns) and where it's possible to provide different views to different players. It was written to prevent inconsistency from one hand to the next.

The fact that card symbols are rotated so that you can read them is also no doubt illegal, but sensible. The current layout - left to right, top to bottom - makes more sense to me online than what the law would say, and much of the law still needs fixing for online play.

[gwnn]

If true, it's quite realistic, isn't it? Can't we have some empathy for once?

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-November-01, 13:54, said:

The latter is a non-issue IMO. Law 41d was not written with graphical interfaces in mind where screen space is limited (esp on mobile, which uses an identical GUI - the old standalone desktop version used to lay out cards in separate columns) and where it's possible to provide different views to different players. It was written to prevent inconsistency from one hand to the next.

The fact that card symbols are rotated so that you can read them is also no doubt illegal, but sensible. The current layout - left to right, top to bottom - makes more sense to me online than what the law would say, and much of the law still needs fixing for online play.

I would go further and say that 41d is a disgrace, even for f2f play.
If we are to offer a memory aid (in contrast to other law) about trumps then surely it would be better to leave exposed the bidding card(s) for the contract, as various RAs have experimented in the past with no obvious downside (and the advantage of eliminating any possible successive discussion about what the contract was).
Not specifying an order for the suits is an invitation for confusion and for undisclosed communication from dummy to Declarer.
With a graphical interface it would be trivial to change the background colour of trumps or similar, if we do want a memory aid after all.