[blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why?

[Guthrie]

[Adam Wildavsky]
Matchpoints, first seat, favorable vulnerability you pick up:
S:954 H:3 D:JT4 C:JT9865

You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H
is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your
partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have
calls available to show any two suits.

I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split
between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice.

[Nige1]
IMO _P = 10, 3C = 3 _X = 2.

It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that
partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT.

Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will
hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, and more likely at
least 15 HCP. Another is that partner's hesitation implies he holds
more like 20 HCP. Would knowing that partner held 20 HCP make 3C more
attractive, or would it make Pass more attractive, or neither?

We are all familiar with the school that holds that partner's
hesitations usually suggest bidding. The more partner holds, the more
tricks we are likely to take in our contract, and the more likely we
can set the opponents if they bid on.

A contrary argument here is that +200 is a live possibility if you
pass, a result not available in 3C.

The laws require you to figure out what action partner's UI suggests,
if anything, so that you can do the opposite. Knowing partner huddled,
and wanting to follow the laws, what is your call, and why?

[Nige1]
Interesting and difficult decision. I have not read the director or 
appeal ruling, so I am unprejudiced.

Assume that Adam is right that
(i) opponents have not made a mistake
(ii) Hence partner is marked with a good hand and
(ii) His hesitation implies he has 20 HCP.

Can we deduce that partner does not have good major suit or a major two 
suiter? I think so, because, because then, it would be risky for partner 
to pass 1N. If that inference is valid, 2H may be making or going one 
down when can make game in notrump or a minor.

Hence, IMO the hesitation *clearly* suggests bidding 3C, so if South bid 
and gained by it, IMO the director would adjust back to 2H.

Were that director decision appealed, IMO the committee should not 
impose an AMWM or PP because superficially plausible arguments can be 
made for other rulings.

Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a 
mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, 
arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent his 
ethical partner from competing in a suit.