[Zelandakh]

I see some posts in this thread such as suggesting N-S were using illegal (weasel) methods and the like. Is there any evidence of that? Does the BIT really mean any more than that South forgot the agreement and was unsure? The method where X is optional and 4NT is for takeout is extremely popular in club bridge in some regions. That South did not bid 4NT seems to suggest that they were genuinely unsure about the agreements and were hedging their bets somewhat.

That North was unsure of the agreement is less certain. It must surely be that the assumed meaning was takeout for the 5♥ bid to have been made. If North is aware of South's tendency to forget the agreement then the hesitation surely suggests passing since it makes the optional hand more likely. Can anyone provide a strong case as to why the hesitation suggests bidding over the alternatives of suggesting passing and nothing at all? I think there is a natural tendency for knowledgeable bridge players to want to punish a hesitation in this spot because it is so easy to abuse. It might be that N-S really are abusing that but the right answer is surely to rule on the assumption that they are not cheating first while recording the case to see if a pattern emerges over time.