[CSGibson]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - ?

---

I read in Hardy's 2/1 book that a 4♦ rebid here is showing 4 card hearts, 6 card diamonds, and most of the HCP in those two suits. Is that still a standard treatment, and would you use it with this hand?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

as far as I know, that is still the meaning of
a 4D bid, although to be more precise:

4D shows a solid 6 card suit suit with support
for responders mayor.
So the diamond may be a little bit too weak,
since the Queen is missing, but it is certainly
a good description.

The alternative being 3S.

Which bid you choose, depends partially on the
requirements for a 4D bid and also partially on the
follow ups, if you play followups, which would tell
partner that you hold, a spade void instead of a
single, than it may be more useful to bid 3S instead
of 4D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

I've also seen 4♦ as "No splinter", i.e. 2452.

[helene_t]

What Marlowe said.

[FrancesHinden]

CSGibson, on Jan 7 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - P - 1♥ - P - ?

---

I read in Hardy's 2/1 book that a 4♦ rebid here is showing 4 card hearts, 6 card diamonds, and most of the HCP in those two suits. Is that still a standard treatment, and would you use it with this hand?

Yes, and yes.

[cherdano]

I would splinter.

[miguelm]

4D shows a solid Diam. suit plus a good Heart fit (at least that was the way I learn it).

This gives two interesting inferences. If you splinter, either you Hearts aren't good or or suit isn't solid.

If you bid 4H, beside the previous you also deny shortness.

[Trinidad]

To me, 4♦ shows the hand in the original post, i.e. a very good, but not solid diamond suit. After this, responder knows to value his diamond top honor, if he has one.

I see splinters as well as this 4♦ bid as a method for partner to evaluate the location of his honors. When you think of it that way, it is not useful to bid 4♦ with a solid suit (since partner will be turned off since he won't have a fitting honor) and not useful to splinter with a singleton A or K.

If the diamond suit in the original post would be solid, like ♠-♥Kxxx♦AKQJxx♣JTx, I would splinter with 3♠. This would tell my partner to discount any spade honors and upgrade honors outside spades. Since I know he doesn't have any honors in diamonds he will be upgrading honors in clubs and hearts, exactly the honors that are of value to me.

Rik

[Fluffy]

Yes that is a 4♦rebid, but to be completelly classic it should have no void.

[P_Marlowe]

Trinidad, on Jan 7 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

To me, 4♦ shows the hand in the original post, i.e. a very good, but not solid diamond suit. After this, responder knows to value his diamond top honor, if he has one.

This is one way to see it, another way would be,
that the 4D bid tells partner, that in a heart
contract we have 6 sure diamonds tricks.

Which may help him, to count to 12 or 13.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

The very old definition of this Walsh jump was a 7 card suit and bad trump. I play a 6 card suit, and it doesn't have to be solid but it should be pretty good. If you put too many restrictions on these calls, they will never come up.

This hand qualifies for 4♦.

[kfay]

I'd never heard that before but I like it.

Having said that I'd bid 3♠. Doesn't this suggest 5+♦s anyways? Also it stresses what I think to be the most important feature of this hand right away.

[mikeh]

I'm not sure that the call ever attained 'standard' status, but I think it is used as much as ever.

In one partnership, we added a wrinkle:

1♦  1♥
4♣     is the same bid, but with a very good hand
4♦     not such a good hand

We cater to a club splinter by using 3♠ as 'short in a black suit', with 3N as a relay to ask....

So we can distinguish between, say, xx Axxx AKQxxx x and Ax AQxx AKxxxx x

On the given hand, I am not keen to use the 4♦ gadget: I think this is a rock-bottom minimum for the call, and I don't like holding a void with 3 losers in the other suit. But I think I'd use it anyway, because Axxx in hearts is enough to make game or even xxx Jxxxx xxx xx (yes, he has more than that) and I don't want to make a bid below game that he can pass.

[Trinidad]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 7 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Jan 7 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

To me, 4♦ shows the hand in the original post, i.e. a very good, but not solid diamond suit. After this, responder knows to value his diamond top honor, if he has one.

This is one way to see it, another way would be,
that the 4D bid tells partner, that in a heart
contract we have 6 sure diamonds tricks.

Which may help him, to count to 12 or 13.

With kind regards
Marlowe

That is obviously true and it is certainly valuable information.

There are two reasons why I prefer the semi-solid suit approach.

1) If you require a solid suit, the bid won't come up that often. Partner will only be able to count to 12 or 13 when the bid comes up. And that is pretty rare.

2) Often, it is not necessary to tell partner about the solid suit. After all, I can see the solid suit in my own hand and I can already see myself that there are 6 diamond tricks. Effectively, you are making the bid to tell partner that you have six tricks, while you already knew that yourself when you picked up your cards. As a partnership, the only thing you have done is share information about the number of diamond tricks. This was information that you already had. It is not new information.
However, if you require a suit missing one top honor, partner can count on 6 diamond tricks as soon as he has a top honor himself. This is a situation where no one in the partnership knows up front how many diamond tricks there will be. But after the 4♦ bid, partner will have the information about the diamond suit. This is information that the partnership has gained due to the 4♦ bid. This is new information. And it is information that is very hard to get any other way.

Finally, as I indicated, if your suit is solid, a splinter to 3♠ will extract very valuable information from partner too. And that is what you want, since you are already in the position to count six diamond tricks yourself.

Rik

[lexlogan]

In Aces Scientific, Bobby Goldman gave this example of a 4♦ rebid after 1♦-1♠: AQxx xx AKxxxx x . So your example looks fine, except perhaps for the void. Partner might not pursue slam with xxx AJxx Qx KQxx, thinking both black aces are missing. He might respond better to a 3♠ splinter. I think you'd be safe showing the void or otherwise driving to slam if he makes a move over either rebid.

[awm]

I'd prefer to splinter on this hand. Otherwise, how does partner know that:

♠xxxx
♥AJxx
♦xx
♣AKx

is a good slam whereas:

♠AKxx
♥AJxx
♦xx
♣xxx

has no five-level safety?

When bidding 4♦, I'd like to be able to guarantee that if partner has good trumps and first round control in one of the two black suits, at a minimum we will have five-level safety (i.e. partner can cuebid to find out if my singleton, if any, is in the other black suit). In other words, I'd like at least third round control in each of the black suits.

[kenrexford]

The diamond suit quality is a tad light for my tastes.

However, if you want to use this tool, the objections concerning the location of your stiff is somewhat easily solved. Responder can use the relay as an asking bid. If, say, clubs are opened and spades agreed, 4♦ by Responder can ask for the stiff, Opener bidding 4♥ with a stiff heart and 4♠ with a stiff spade.

Consider the actual auction, however. This is a tight bid, because the "relay" if 4♠, which forces the slam. A wlash fragment bid immediately below the trump suit, or even one below, is a very tight bid.

It may be useful to agree that the Walsh Frag that is one-under shows a specific shortness, the one that is least convenient.

The easy way to understand "convenient" is to ask which option is most difficult to bid in another manner. That leads me, in this situation, to handling the short club holding through the Walsh Frag.

Reasons. If Opener opts for a splinter, 4♣ bypasses a Serious 3NT, but 3♠ does not. If Opener opts to bid around a void, 3♣ is recognized as possibly manufactured but 2♠ is not.

Thus, ideally the one-under Walsh Frag should be with shortness in the other minor and a frag in the other major.

The same GP applies to a two-under W.F., IMO.