WellSpyder

I absolutely agree. But I think it is critical for this argument to have some evidence about East's normal tempo, not just about the typical tempo in the club.

Yes indeed, we can certainly guess, just as many people did their best by guessing what the agreement about 4C might have been. But I think OP is likely to get a more useful discussion if basic facts are provided up front.

That is a little hard to say when you haven't told us who did what after the first three bids. I don't play much rubber bridge (perhaps just as well since it would never have occurred to me that 4C could be a transfer in that context), but it does strike me that the north hand is seriously good for the bidding to date. If you choose to open 2N with this, then what about at least breaking the transfer and bidding 5D rather than 4D?

I don't think you can penalise East for following the stop rules unless you have evidence that this particular player generally does not do so. So if the TD isn't sure whether East does or does not normally pause for the required time then I think he should rule no BIT. If you do decide that there was a BIT then clearly you want a poll to judge whether pass is a LA for West. I suppose you might also wonder what the BIT might show - after all, you wouldn't normally expect a player who could only raise to 2H to be considering 5H now, so perhaps you would want a poll on that, too. But I guess my gut reaction is that a BIT would indeed suggest bidding over passing, and also that pass has to be a LA when vulnerable.

Just our of curiosity, how exactly does this work? Say I open 1H. LHO overcalls 2H. Do I understand correctly that this isn't alerted because it is a cue-bid and therefore assumed to be "self-alerting"? Now my partner bids 2S. This may be conventional, but do I understand you correctly that I don't need to alert this IF it is a cue-bid of a suit shown by the other side? But I won't know whether or not oppo have shown spades unless I have had an explanation of the 2H bid, which presumably I'm not entitled to until it is my turn to bid?

Not in any meaningful sense, in my view. Suppose they just turn on the printing presses for a bit, and then drop the resulting notes from a helicopter, which I collect and put under the bed. At what point does the borrowing occur?

Bank notes in a suitcase under the bed?

My partner led ♣A and continued a second ♣. But then East had opened 4♠ rather than 1♠ and I wimped out of backing into the auction with 4NT (or double), so partner didn't have any real reason to think the second club wouldn't stand up.

Why did he promise to do things that he wouldn't have power or authority to do?

Nigel, are you sure you understand how these forums are supposed to work? No-one expects other participants to listen to the points being made! :)

True (I think!). But 2/1 promising a rebid is a much more common agreement on your side of the Atlantic than ours, and I suspect is unlikely to have been the case here.

No. It would be nice to have better trump intermediates, but to me it is totally obvious to pass for penalties. Why should you expect a slam to be both biddable and makeable? You are hardly likely to be losing much if game is the limit of the hand, and could easily show a big profit from taking the money. And it might help keep oppo honest on the rest of the boards, too.....

I think it's close between Double = good Double = automatic. I don't like the other options.

I don't see why I should be interested in buying, whether the price is $7000 or 7 cents. And actually, I'm not sure I understand the intrinsic difference between a price of $7000 and 7 cents, when the only value is effectively what someone else thinks it is worth - if I am buying purely in order to speculate (or to diversify risk, if one wants to be more positive about it) then the scope for upward or downward movement seems exactly the same from either of these levels.

This says it all, in my view.

4♦seems OK to me - not enough to insist in game, but a pretty nice hand in support of partner's suit, which I might have considered supporting on the previous round....

I wonder what west was thinking about when she wrote "2". My guess is that she temporarily "forgot" that 1N was sufficient and might have been about to bid 2N. Does that tell east anything useful about her hand? I don't think so, so I don't think any call is suggested over another by the UI.

No, honestly I'm not, barmar - though I can see why it might have that effect! But I don't understand the point of telling us that we don't need to take a player away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(b), if we still need to take them away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(a).

We also have to be concerned with the denomination specified.

Are you allowing 3N under 27B1(a) because it names the same denomination as the IB, or because it might(!) show the same denomination as the IB?

One of my partners likes to play that the so-called "cheapest splinter" (in this case, 3♦) shows 18-19 balanced with a fit. 3♦ is not needed as a natural jump-shift since a reverse into 2♦ is F. Of course, it does mean that you need 4♦ to show fit + shortage, as a splinter is supposed to do, but I suspect many would need to bid this high to show a splinter, anyway.

Sorry, Vix, I'm found myself still pursuing it in another thread. I'm not trying to be stubborn at all in how I interpret "specify". In fact, I'm trying to be completely flexible and willing to adopt whatever interpretation the powers that be want me to. But I guess I am being stubborn in trying to get a clear answer, because when eminent authorities disagree then it is hard for lesser mortals to know how to handle a ruling.

I agree that that would make it simple. But you do realise that this interpretation puts you at odds with most of the other authorities who have commented, don't you? I don't think it is fair to describe something as easily understood just because you think it is easy for you to understand, when your easy reading of it is completely at odds with the reading of other intelligent TDs. +1

Oh! I understood - and, indeed, I thought I championed - this approach with regard to 27B1(b). But I hadn't realised that a similar approach was being suggested for 27B1(a). So "specified" doesn't really mean "shown" or "named", but actually means "might have been intended to be shown"?

I guess that is exactly why this is now more difficult, isn't it? When we had the condition that the IB and the same denomination made sufficient were incontrovertibly not artificial, then there was no difference between the denomination shown and the denomination named anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered how we interpreted "specified".