I suspect that North normally bids this way - I would ask North why they didn't bid 3S immediately over the double. I imagine I would rule it as amber - but I don't think there is a concealed partnership understanding to open 1S on this sort of hand.
Whatever South has done and whether deliberate or not I don't see this as a red psyche because the value bid with the North hand is to compete to 3S which he has done. I agree 2D is odd but doesn't suggest to me any concealed understanding.
So your partner has made a Game Try of 3C. Do you not think you have substantial extras....4cd trump supp with an ace, Kd well placed, doubleton in the Game Try suit, and the JH in partners suit should have some value?
We can expect South to hold as a minimum Kxxxx AKxx x Axx or similar?
Well, yes. Any partner of mine would be playing in 4S. But like Gordon says, North has gone back to spades twice. North's actions are questionable but not necessarily fielding. It doesn't feel like red to me. I'm in camp amber.
I agree, and I would be very inclined to accept South's claim that he had mis-bid rather than psyched. I would expect North to convince me against ruling "red" but even if he doesn't, I'd then rule under White Book 1.4.5 as a fielded mis-bid. Either way, I still don't rule a red psyche.
I think this really depends on what the systemic meanings of 3C and 2D are. The meanings of 2S and 3S over the X (as alternatives to 2D) also matter, in case one of those was a more reasonable bid than 2D – but it's quite common for Acol-based systems to show a particular range of support by bidding a new suit and then returning to partner's suit, so this may have been a systemic way to show spade support (especially over the double, it's quite plausible that 2S and 3S would both have shown specific weaker hands, requiring the use of an indirect method). N's bidding up to the 3S bid otherwise looks normal, so it's basically a matter of whether it's obvious N should accept a 3C game try (red psyche), obvious N should reject (green psyche), or somewhere in between (amber psyche).
For what it's worth, I think that (depending on what 3C means) it's quite possible that I would reject the game try at the table – and I play 2D as weaker than many players do. It's easy to imagine that 2D might be a bit stronger in this partnership than in mine, meaning that North might be completely minimum for the 2D bid and thus not interested in cooperating with any game tries even if clubs were a good suit to hear a game try in (and without knowing what sort of game tries are in use, it's hard to tell whether clubs are a good or bad suit for the try). For example, many Acol partnerships play that this sort of 2-over-1 bid shows a hand that's willing to go to game if partner has a strong notrump, and I think that North's hand is slightly too weak to make that guarantee – so North might have been stretching already (I can easily imagine that this is a gap in the system where the hand is too strong for 3S but too weak for 2D, so North had to improvise).
Conclusions: without knowing exactly how the system works, we can't figure out whether this was fielding or not – but it's certainly plausible that N/S are playing a system in which N's bidding is normal, or even systemically forced.
If south says that 1S was a mis-click, I can't see why we would not accept that claim - the hand certainly has the look of a mis-click to me.
Looking at North's hand - 9 losers I would almost certainly raise to 2S at my first opportunity, however, I can certainly see myself as bidding 2D here as a way of finding out more about partners hand before signing off - Axxx support seems undervalued, so 2D looks like a reasonable option.
After a 2H rebid, I would assume weak with 5-4 shape and would then 'sign off' in 2S.
Now comes a 3C trial bid... shape looks to be 5-4-1-3 or 5-4-0-4 - this does not improve my hand any as my Kxxx diamonds are now not looking worth much, neither is my Jx clubs - so I would bid 3S now.
The auction makes absolutely no sense to me from any of the four players at the table (even if I take as given that 1S was a mis-click) but North has kept going back to partner's suit even if we don't entirely agree with the level.
Passing 3C, now that would be a little suspicious.
Comments
What is NS system? 4cM or 5cM? Weak/strong NT?
4cM, Weak NT
Was it deliberate (or did ecclesian get confused over clubs and spades)?
He claimed he misclicked 1S...you need to focus on North's actions though...
South claimed it was a misclick...but North would be unaware of that...so you should consider North's actions..
I suspect that North normally bids this way - I would ask North why they didn't bid 3S immediately over the double. I imagine I would rule it as amber - but I don't think there is a concealed partnership understanding to open 1S on this sort of hand.
North's 2D bid is odd, but he has gone back to spades twice.
Whatever South has done and whether deliberate or not I don't see this as a red psyche because the value bid with the North hand is to compete to 3S which he has done. I agree 2D is odd but doesn't suggest to me any concealed understanding.
So your partner has made a Game Try of 3C. Do you not think you have substantial extras....4cd trump supp with an ace, Kd well placed, doubleton in the Game Try suit, and the JH in partners suit should have some value?
We can expect South to hold as a minimum Kxxxx AKxx x Axx or similar?
Well, yes. Any partner of mine would be playing in 4S. But like Gordon says, North has gone back to spades twice. North's actions are questionable but not necessarily fielding. It doesn't feel like red to me. I'm in camp amber.
I agree, and I would be very inclined to accept South's claim that he had mis-bid rather than psyched. I would expect North to convince me against ruling "red" but even if he doesn't, I'd then rule under White Book 1.4.5 as a fielded mis-bid. Either way, I still don't rule a red psyche.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I think this really depends on what the systemic meanings of 3C and 2D are. The meanings of 2S and 3S over the X (as alternatives to 2D) also matter, in case one of those was a more reasonable bid than 2D – but it's quite common for Acol-based systems to show a particular range of support by bidding a new suit and then returning to partner's suit, so this may have been a systemic way to show spade support (especially over the double, it's quite plausible that 2S and 3S would both have shown specific weaker hands, requiring the use of an indirect method). N's bidding up to the 3S bid otherwise looks normal, so it's basically a matter of whether it's obvious N should accept a 3C game try (red psyche), obvious N should reject (green psyche), or somewhere in between (amber psyche).
For what it's worth, I think that (depending on what 3C means) it's quite possible that I would reject the game try at the table – and I play 2D as weaker than many players do. It's easy to imagine that 2D might be a bit stronger in this partnership than in mine, meaning that North might be completely minimum for the 2D bid and thus not interested in cooperating with any game tries even if clubs were a good suit to hear a game try in (and without knowing what sort of game tries are in use, it's hard to tell whether clubs are a good or bad suit for the try). For example, many Acol partnerships play that this sort of 2-over-1 bid shows a hand that's willing to go to game if partner has a strong notrump, and I think that North's hand is slightly too weak to make that guarantee – so North might have been stretching already (I can easily imagine that this is a gap in the system where the hand is too strong for 3S but too weak for 2D, so North had to improvise).
Conclusions: without knowing exactly how the system works, we can't figure out whether this was fielding or not – but it's certainly plausible that N/S are playing a system in which N's bidding is normal, or even systemically forced.
If south says that 1S was a mis-click, I can't see why we would not accept that claim - the hand certainly has the look of a mis-click to me.
Looking at North's hand - 9 losers I would almost certainly raise to 2S at my first opportunity, however, I can certainly see myself as bidding 2D here as a way of finding out more about partners hand before signing off - Axxx support seems undervalued, so 2D looks like a reasonable option.
After a 2H rebid, I would assume weak with 5-4 shape and would then 'sign off' in 2S.
Now comes a 3C trial bid... shape looks to be 5-4-1-3 or 5-4-0-4 - this does not improve my hand any as my Kxxx diamonds are now not looking worth much, neither is my Jx clubs - so I would bid 3S now.
The auction makes absolutely no sense to me from any of the four players at the table (even if I take as given that 1S was a mis-click) but North has kept going back to partner's suit even if we don't entirely agree with the level.
Passing 3C, now that would be a little suspicious.