Walsh Diamond (Walsh Responses)

Walsh Diamond (Walsh Responses) - Outside the Walsh system, after partner opens 1 Club most players bid four card suits "up the line" looking for a major suit 8+ card fit.  Not necessarily so with the Walsh Diamond where opener begins by showing a 4 card major with a minimum hand.  The Walsh philosophy is, "Immediately bid your major suit with a minimum hand; with game-going values and a long Diamond suit, only then should you begin with the 1 Diamond response and belatedly rebid a major suit on your own.  When responder does not hold a 4 card major, Walsh players respond 1 Notrump with 8-10 points; otherwise respond 1 Diamond with a balanced hand and less than a reasonable 6- 8 point hand.

  Using the Walsh 1 Diamond approach then, after 1C by opener and 1D by responder, opener need not rebid a 4 card major (unless they hold an unbalanced hand).  Accordingly, opener can simply rebid Notrump with a balanced hand.

Bid	Meaning
1C - 1D; 1N - P;	After responder bids 1D, opener assumes responder does not hold a 4 card major and bypasses a 4 card major (perhaps 4=3=2=4 shape).  Holding minimum values and a balanced hand, responder passes.  With an unbalanced hand, responder rebids a minor suit.
1C - 1D; 1N - 2S;	Holding 4=2=5=2 with opening hand or better, begin by bidding 1D, rebidding a major suit with game-going values (make a "reverse" rebid of a 4 card major if necessary, 2S here should opener rebid 1N)
1C - 1D; 1H - 1S;	After responder bids 1D, opener rebid of a major signifies an unbalanced hand (say 2=4=2=5).  Should responder rebid 1S, the bid shows an opening hand with 4 Spades and 4+ Diamonds (responder's 1 Spade bid is natural and game forcing).
1C - 1D; 1S - 2S	Opener's hand is unbalanced, rebidding 1S. Responder's rebid agreements vary depending on partnership understandings: 1. Responder's 2S bid is a signoff bid with minimum values, and unbalanced hand and only 3 card Spade support (perhaps 3=3=6=1 shape).  With a minimum hand and 4 Spades, responder would have initially bid 1S. 2. Responder 2S bid is invitational, show 11 points and 3 card support

In summary, after opener begins 1C and responder bids 1D, with a balanced hand opener rebids 1N - bypassing a 4 card major suit.  If responder has a good 12+ point hand, responder will rebid a 4 card major (check-back bid).

Note: on the ACBL Convention Card, the players check "Frequently bypasses 4+ Diamonds."

Some play after responder begins with a 4 card major and jump rebids 3D, the bid shows a weaker unbalanced hand with a 4 card major and 6+ card minor:

Bid	Meaning
1C - 1H; 1N - 3D	Holding a 1=4=6=2 minimum hand, responder still bypasses 1D, rebidding 3D as a signoff bid.  Unlike other methods, responder's jump rebid is a conventional signoff bid.  Responder's 2D rebid would also be conventional (New Minor Forcing, Checkback Stayman, X-Y-Z, etc).
1C - 1H; 1N - 2D	In lieu of the above methods, some others prefer to rebid only 2D  to handle the above situation (4 card major, 5+ Diamonds and a weak hand).  However, this approach negates conventions like New Minor Forcing, 2C Checkback Stayman, etc.

Losing-Trick Count

Basic counting method

The estimated number of losing tricks (losers) in one's hand is determined by examining each suit and assuming that an ace will never be a loser, nor will a king in a 2+ card suit, nor a queen in a 3+ card suit; accordingly

a void = 0 losing tricks.
a singleton other than an A = 1 losing trick.
a doubleton AK = 0; Ax, Kx or KQ = 1; xx = 2 losing tricks.
a three card suit AKQ = 0; AKx, AQx or KQx = 1 losing trick.
a three card suit Axx, Kxx or Qxx = 2; xxx = 3 losing tricks.

It is also assumed that no suit can have more than 3 losing tricks and so suits longer than three cards are judged according to their three highest cards. It follows that hands without an A, K or Q have a maximum of 12 losers but may have fewer depending on shape, eg. ♠ J x x x ♥ J x x ♦ J x x ♣ J x x has 12 losers (3 in each suit), whereas ♠ x x x x x ♥ — ♦ x x x x ♣ x x x x has only 9 losers (3 in all suits except the void which counts no losers).

Until further information is derived from the bidding, it is assumed that a typical opening hand by partner contains 7 losers, eg. ♠ A K x x x ♥ A x x x ♦ Q x ♣ x x, has 7 losers (1 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 7).

To determine how high to bid, responder adds the number of losers in his hand to the assumed number in opener's hand (7); the total number of losers arrived at by this sum is subtracted from 24 and the result is estimated to be the total number of tricks available to the partnership.

Thus following an opening bid of 1♥, partner jumps to game in 4♥ with no more than 7 losers in his own hand and a fit with partner's heart suit (7 + 7 = 14 subtract from 24 = 10 tricks).
With 8 losers in hand and a fit, responder bids 3♥ (8 + 7 = 15 subtract from 24 = 9 tricks).
With 9 losers and a fit, responder bids 2♥ (9 + 7 = 16 subtract from 24 = 8 tricks).
With only 5 losers and a fit (5 + 7 = 12 subtract from 24 = 12 tricks), a slam is possible so responder may bid straight to 6♥ if preemptive bidding seems appropriate or take a slower forcing approach.

Refinements

Thinking that the method tended to overvalue unsupported queens and undervalue supported jacks, Eric Crowhurst and Andrew Kambites refined the scale as follows:

AQ doubleton = ½ loser according to Ron Klinger.
Kx doubleton = 1½ losers according to others.
AJ10 = 1 loser.
Qxx = 3 losers (or possibly 2.5) unless trumps.
Subtract a loser if there is a known 9-card trump fit.

In his book The Modern Losing Trick Count, Ron Klinger advocates adjusting the number of loser based on the control count of the hand believing that the basic method undervalues an ace but overvalues a queen and undervalues short honor combinations such as Qx or a singleton king. Also it places no value on cards jack or lower.

New Losing Trick Count (NLTC)

Recent insights on these issues have led to the New Losing Trick Count (Bridge World, 2003). For more precision this count utilises the concept of half-losers and, more importantly, distinguishes between 'ace-losers', 'king-losers' and 'queen-losers':

a missing Ace = three half losers.
a missing King = two half losers.
a missing queen = one half loser.

A typical opening bid is assumed to have 15 or fewer half losers (i.e. half a loser more than in the basic LTC method). NLTC differs from LTC also in the fact that it utilises a value of 25 (instead of 24) in determining the trick taking potential of two partnering hands. Hence, in NLTC the expected number of tricks equates to 25 minus the sum of the losers in the two hands (i.e. half the sum of the half losers of both hands). So, 15 half-losers opposite 15 half-losers leads to 25-(15+15)/2 = 10 tricks.

The NLTC solves the problem that the basic LTC method underestimates the trick taking potential by one on hands with a balance between 'ace-losers' and 'queen-losers'. For instance, the LTC can never predict a grand slam when both hands are 4333 distribution.

The NLTC also helps to prevent overstatement on hands which are missing aces.

Second round bids

Whichever method is being used, the bidding need not stop after the opening bid and the response. Assuming opener bids 1♥ and partner responds 2♥; opener will know from this bid that partner has 9 losers (using basic LTC), if opener has 5 losers rather than the systemically assumed 7, then the calculation changes to (5 + 9 = 14 deducted from 24 = 10) and game becomes apparent!
[edit] Limitations of the method

All LTC methods are only valid if trump fit (4-4, 5-3 or better) is evident and, even then, care is required to avoid counting double values in the same suit e.g. KQxx (1 loser in LTC) opposite a singleton x (also 1 loser in LTC).

Regardless which hand evaluation is used (HCP, LTC, NLTC, etc.) without the partners exchanging information about specific suit strengths and suit lengths, a suboptimal evaluation of the trick taking potential of the combined hands will often result.