[RMB1]

Scoring: Hybrid

This is West

W . N . E . S
. . . . 1NT 2♠
3♥ 4♠ 5♣ X
?

1NT is 12-14, 3♥ is forcing with 4+ ♥

---

If West passes, is this evidence of a concealed partnership understanding? Is it sufficient evidence to rule an illegal agreement?

If instead West bid 5♦, is this evidence of a concealed partnership understanding? Is it sufficient evidence to rule an illegal agreement?

I'm not sure what you expect but East had a rather suitable hand.

Scoring: Hybrid

---

South's three aces were not sufficient to defeat 5♦X (or 5♣X)

[mink]

I would say No. The N/S bidding does not make sense if partner has 2 ♠ cards or more. East's bidding also does not make sense if he didn't psyche. So I think I would have gotten the message, too, though I have probably never met East.

Karl

[peachy]

I would say 5C exposed the psych. IMO after the psycher reveals the psych to everyone at the table, there is no more fielding of it, illegal or otherwise, regardless of EW being a regular or a pickup partnership. West is free to act in whichever way he chooses.

[jallerton]

By agreement, what distributional constraints do E/W have for their 1NT opening bid?

[RMB1]

jallerton, on Jun 15 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

By agreement, what distributional constraints do E/W have for their 1NT opening bid?

Sorry: this wasn't asked at the time or recorded on the form.

Assume: no singleton, usually 4333, 4432, 5332, some 5422 (not both M), 6m322.

[campboy]

I can't imagine what I might be doing other than pass or 5♦ at this point, so I'm confident that at least one of them is "green". (5♦ is greener than pass, if anything.)

[gnasher]

I don't think 5♣ exposes the psyche: it just shows a hand that wants to compete to the five level because of a heart fit, and is showing clubs on the way. I'd expect something like xx A10xx Kxx AQJx.

Either pass or 5♦ would suggest that West was expecting something rather different.

[campboy]

Why would it show that we were expecting something different? I don't know what partner thinks 5♣ means, but if he was basing it on a heart fit then he is going to bid 5♥ himself whatever I do.

[bluejak]

Having written and then deleted a post nearly identical to campboy's, I have been thinking.

[pause for ribaldry]

3♥ is natural and forcing. So presumably unlimited. Just like the old-fashioned partnership sequence in pre-transfer days 1NT - 3♥, opener was expected to bid a control with a suitable hand even though he has no idea whether responder was looking for the correct game or slamming.

So, if opener decides his hand is good enough to bid at the five-level, why should 5♣ not show a control? But responder has no aces, and knows there is no slam on, so must bid 5♥ to stop partner launching into slam.

If this is the case, pass or 5♦ suggest a concealed partnership understanding because he has not bid 5♥.

Of course, to complicate life, this pair will have no agreement as to the meaning of 5♣ here - have you with your regular partner?

Originally I was sure this was Green whatever responder did, but now I am not so sure.

[paulg]

I asked an international partnership last night.

One said that passing was clear - this would allow partner to confirm what he was doing and allowed for the possibility that partner was 2227. He thought that this was just playing bridge.

The other said that 5♥ was completely obvious. Partner must have something like ♠xx ♥Axxxx ♦Axx ♣AQx and you needed to deny any slam interest.

Interestingly this was after the 5♥ bidder had psyched against us. Go figure!

[bluejak]

Yes, the trouble with passing is that partner may read something into it other than an attempt to find out what is going on. If he meant 5♣ as a control with hearts agreed, he may read a pass as something - perhaps second round control with hearts agreed - and could even plunge into slam if he has three aces.

I only polled one player, who said that 5♦ seemed obvious. His view was that a 4♥ bid only showing four hearts was a little like FILM or Dixon where a bid of hearts is really takeout with the minors as well, so 5♣ was looking for a minor - and pass would not be a good idea!

The trouble was, when I suggested the possibility of 5♣ being a control, he agreed that was a sensible alternative, and that made 5♥ the obvious bid! See, I only needed a one man poll to show there were alternatives!

The big problem is that players are unlikely to have an agreement in this area, so it is reasonable for a sensible responder to make a cheap bid because it is safer and more likely to find out what is going on. So to go back to the OP, I am beginning to think pass or 5♦ could be ruled as Amber, but not Red.

[gnasher]

campboy, on Jun 16 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Why would it show that we were expecting something different?

As others have said, if 5♣ agreed hearts, anything but 5♥ would be a slam try, and opener would be entitled to bid to the six level with the right hand.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jun 15 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

I don't think 5♣ exposes the psyche: it just shows a hand that wants to compete to the five level because of a heart fit, and is showing clubs on the way. I'd expect something like xx A10xx Kxx AQJx.

Either pass or 5♦ would suggest that West was expecting something rather different.

I really don't think you can bid 5♣ with this hand if 3♥ only showed 4 hearts. That's what a forcing pass is for.

[aguahombre]

cherdanno, on Jun 16 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 15 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

I don't think 5♣ exposes the psyche: it just shows a hand that wants to compete to the five level because of a heart fit, and is showing clubs on the way.  I'd expect something like xx A10xx Kxx AQJx.

Either pass or 5♦ would suggest that West was expecting something rather different.

I really don't think you can bid 5♣ with this hand if 3♥ only showed 4 hearts. That's what a forcing pass is for.

Thank you. 3H set up a FP situation, and 5C in a weak NT framework can have no meaning. I vote logic for West's "fielding" pass. 5D after applying the logic, is also fielding, but a bit too much vision and/or hedging for my taste.

[Free]

Sorry but I don't buy that 5♣ shows slam interest. Opener can't have slam interest with a balanced hand opposite a 4 card suit in partner's hand. Pass is forcing so that's also no option. 5♣ clearly exposes the psych imo, to everyone...

[gwnn]

i agree with the web browser, very well put

[FrancesHinden]

If 3H was just forcing with 4+ hearts, I don't think 5C should agree hearts at all.

If I had this auction at the table, I would think that partner is suggesting playing in 5C, perhaps holding

xx
Ax
Axx
AJ109xx

(now I admit that 5C is going off, but anything else is probably worse)

if partner sometimes opens with a singleton spade, then that's a very very likely holding on this auction.

[RMB1]

At the table, West bid 5♦. The hand was recorded, as "green" (innocent).

I was given the hand as a bidding problem and passed. I don't have a concealled partnership understanding with East (who is unknown to me). We briefly discussed how we would rule if West had passed, but my colleagues thought that passing would not be "green": showing some evidence of a concealled partnership understanding.

[aguahombre]

If I understand the colors correctly, a color means the psyche was fielded and green means it was fielded via logic or gbk. Other colors are not good things.

If that is true, then Pass is green, and 5D is not a color at all. The person who bid 5D either didn't field the psyche (hence, no color) or fielded the psche and also knew something else not shown legitimately by the auction (way beyond color).

[blackshoe]

I think, Aqua, you are using "fielded" without necessarily any sense that the "fielding" is illegal. In England, if I'm not mistaken, "fielding" means illegally allowing for a psych, so if it's ruled "green", that means it was not fielded. Amber means there was some evidence of illegality, but not enough to ruled definite fielding. Red means it is ruled to have been sufficient evidence.