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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

> [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.
>   
AG : I disagree strongly with this statement. Over a strong NT, playing 
"all two-suiters", I would pass without any sort of problem holding a 
(4333) 20-count, but give me a hand like : Axx - KJ10x - QJxx - AQ and I 
could think a little about bidding my red 2-suiter.

> 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.
>   
How on Earth could he have known that his hesitation *on 1NT* would help 
partner deduce he holds hearts ?

Best regards


   Alain