Some respond 1 holding xxJxxxKQJxxxx to partner's 1 (non- Walsh style) and some respond 1 (Walsh style).
What do you play a jump to 3 after 1 - 1 - 1 not playing Walsh?
What do you play a jump to 3 after 1 - 1 - 1 playing Walsh?
You have to discuss with your partner what your responding style is. If you decide to play Walsh, your 1 response denies a four-card major unless you have a game force. In other words you respond 1 holding xxJxxxKQJxxxx. Therefore opener only rebids a four-card major with an unbalanced hand. Holding KxxxAxxxKxKxx, open 1 and rebid 1NT over partner’s 1 response. If Responder has a four-card major, he can check back. Holding AxxxxxxxAKJxx, open 1 and rebid 1 over partner’s 1 response. Responder will know that you have an unbalanced hand.
If you decide not to play Walsh, then you respond 1 holding xxJxxxKQJxxxx. Opener rebids 1 holding KxxxAxxxKxKxx and you find your eight-card heart fit. However, I don’t go out of my way to respond 1. Holding xxxxxxxAKxxxxx I’d respond 1. Holding xxxAKxxxxxxxxxI’d respond 1. There are some experts who play a jump to 3 as game-forcing five-five.
---I would ALWAYS respond 1
on the given hand, whether playing Walsh or not. If I had responded 1
, I can get out in 2
by rebidding 2
, which would be XYZ demanding 2
. I would play 1
as a forcing 5-5 with slam aspirations.
---In "standard" methods, 3
is a game-going two-suiter. I have used this as artificial--and complicated--in different specific methods. I’ve never responded 1
holding KQJxxx of diamonds.
not playing Walsh, 3
would be six diamonds invitational. After 1
playing Walsh, 3
would be five hearts and five diamonds forcing.
There are some experts who play 3 as invitational five –five.
---Natural, and invitational, typically five-five. Same for all fourth suit jumps. As for your example hand, I can't imagine bidding anything but 1
---On my deathbed I wouldn't respond 1
with this hand nor would I play any system that requires it. After 1
, that is an invitational two-suiter with a likely 5-5 pattern.
---Both invitational with at least five diamonds, although in the Walsh style I do not promise five hearts, but I do of course in the non-Walsh.
---Ron Smith and I play jump in fourth suit as five-five invitational. We play a Walsh style.
---I play both five-five invitational.
---Both as five-five invitational.
---I tend to play 3
is 5-5 invitational whether I play Walsh style or not. But I would never bid 1
with this hand in either case.
---I like to play that a jump in the fourth suit is five-five invitational. No exceptions/changes due to Walsh style/philosophy.
---We don't respond 1
unless we have a game-forcing hand with four hearts and five+ diamonds with ONE exception, that being the hand in your example. That being the case, we would raise opener's 1
rebid to 3
to show this exact hand. Raising opener’s 1
rebid to 2
is a natural game-force. In the second question, 3
would show five-five natural and invitational.
not playing Walsh, 3
is natural and invitational. After 1
playing Walsh, 3
is natural and invitational, but I would never be that stupid. My impression is that you have to bid 1NT with
x. I do play Walsh but specifically excluded 4-6’s for this and other reasons.
---I play Walsh and probably would still bid 1
with that hand. I play the jump to 3
is five-five invitational on the auction you gave.
---Not playing Walsh, 3
is five-five invitational. Playing Walsh, 3
is a game-forcing artificial spade raise, which is part of a complicated system.
---Playing old fashioned bridge, I play a jump rebid of 3
as invitational. About a king or an ace better than this hand. With this hand I would rebid 2
. Playing Walsh, I play 3
as two suited, 5-5 invitational. With this hand I would rebid 1NT, and hope to convert 2
Some experts play a convention called XYZ. After 1 - 1red - 1, 2 forces 2 and shows a diamond signoff or an invitational hand. If Opener has a very strong hand, he does not have to bid 2. After 1 - 1 Red - 1, 2 by responder is an artificial game-force. You can also use XYZ after 1 - 1 - 1.
---The problem is resolved playing XYZ. After 1
, in order to play 2
, bid 2
, and pass partner's 90% forced 2
. Holding a different hand that you want to invite, start with 2
, and raise the 2
bid to 3
. If you want to game force, over 1
, start with 2
, and then rebid 3
. With strong 5-5, e.g.
Qx, bid 3
over the 1
rebid. So on the given hand, playing Walsh or not, I bid 2
and pass forced 2
---XYZ, of course. So 2
usually forces 2
, and we're done. 3
is a game-forcing concentrated five-five after 1
. It’s natural, invitational with a good suit after 1
Some play a jump to 3 when playing Walsh as a 4-6 signoff.
---Playing Walsh, I play it shows the hand weak four-six. Not playing Walsh, invitational five-five seems more important than a "mini-splinter."
----Playing Walsh, 3
has to be to play, unless you have some other method to make a non-forcing diamond bid (same as 3
on the auction 1
). If I were not playing Walsh, 3
would either be invitational or forcing, which is my preference.
---Not playing Walsh, 3
would be five-five invitational. Playing Walsh, 3
would be a signoff in diamonds.
---Not playing Walsh, I play 3
as a splinter, less values than 4
. Playing Walsh, I play a jump to 3
as a weak 4-6.
---I play Walsh and 3
is weak after responding 1
, unless I'm playing XYZ, then 2
---If playing XYZ, I can bid 2
then bid 3
for invitational five-five and be able to jump to 3
to show slammish five-five, and go through 2
for all non-slammish looking five-five game only.
---The answer would be based on whether one is playing XYZ where 2
relays to 2
so that 2
could be played. Many "usual" auctions take on other meanings, such as 2NT relaying to 3
. One can fit different invitational lengths as well as forcing lengths. As in one-way new-minor-forcing, many types of hands are covered. To get the invitational lengths correct, all jumps to three-of-a-minor would be five-five invitational. Otherwise, left to Neanderthal methods, it seems best to cater your system to games rather than partscores. A mainstream idea is to play it as five-five invitational. With the given weak hand, the unappetizing 1NT might be about it. It keeps the auction low, and you might be able to convert 2
---I bid 3
---I would bid 1
and then 2
, and since I normally play two-way Checkback Stayman, would sign-off with 3
over 1NT. Also I play 3
is Game Forcing and distributional, and then 1
---I play XYZ, where 2
relays to 2
to get out, and I have more flexibility. I think 2
is invitational with only four hearts and a jump to 3
should be five-five invitational.
xx is a minimum. A jump to 3
playing Walsh is to play, unless playing XYZ, which I endorse, then as above.
---I respond 1
and rebid 2
before Walsh. If I respond 1
, I am forced to pass 1
or bid 1NT. I think 3
is five-five invitational with hearts and diamonds. Over many years, I have played 3
as a weak 4-6. Playing Walsh I respond 1
---I’m about 99% Walsh style, but actually have notes to make an exception with this particular hand with such good diamonds and weak hearts within a weak hand; if it is a part-score, I want to play in diamonds. If the Auction goes 1
, I play 2
by responder as game-forcing with four hearts within the Walsh context and jump to 3
to show this 6-4 hand type. Thus, we will not usually miss a heart game if we have it, but can play a safer part-score if it is not a game hand.
Currently, I play jumps into fourth suit are 5-5 invitational, thus I could not handle the given hand that way. I am not convinced it is best to get to the three-level voluntarily on potential misfit hands and am open to other options. I know people use XYZ, and maybe that could solve some of the issues on this hand, but I am not a fan, because if I responded 1
and partner bid a heavy 1
, we could miss a game if I tried to sign off in 2
using XYZ. If I wasn't playing Walsh and had responded 1
with the actual hand, I would rebid 2
as sign-off and 3
would be invitational.
When people have the weak 4-6 hands with clubs, I know most partnerships have various methods to sign-off in 3
either directly or via 2NT or other puppet mechanisms. Perhaps adjuncts to add this weak 4-6 diamond hand to sign-off plans is helpful, but you can be creative to use many of those follow-ups after relays to 3
sign-offs for choice of games or slam purposes.
I think it's a matter of frequency and preference, and I feel with my solution above, I retain the viable heart game possibilities without overstating my strength, while keeping my strong penchant for the Walsh style to bypass diamonds on non-game going hands.
---If playing XYZ: just as in two-way new-minor-forcing, a jump to 3
should be a slammish two-suiter after 1
(just as 1
- 1NT - 3
) since 2
would generally get you out at 2
unless opener has concealed extra values; then you have to play 3
correction of an unexpected, extra-values bid, is to play; any other bid would be originally intended as in invitational but now game-forcing.
This unexpected, extra-values bid is not possible after a 1NT rebid of course, but very possible after opener's 1
If not playing XYZ: in Walsh style, 1
is weak with 4-6. When playing non-Walsh, it would be invitational showing 5-5.
could be game-forcing if you play 1
as natural and invitational, which I think is best, but that requires some other artificial game-forcing sequence with club support.
—I play the second round jump shift into the fourth suit as a splinter raise of the third suit in either situation. My second choice would be natural and invitational (typically 5-5). I would respond 1
with the example hand, though I often bypass diamonds with hearts and limited values.
---I play a jump to 3
as five or more hearts, five or more diamonds, game forcing,.and slam interest. Playing Walsh, I play a jump to 3
as 4-6 non-forcing.
There is no standard way to play a jump in a third or fourth suit. However, a majority of experts like 3 after 1 -- 1 -- 1 to show an invitational five-five hand. If you have a weak hand with four hearts and six diamonds, you have to bid 1NT and hope for the best. I think that if you have a weak six-four such as xxJxxxKQxxxxx, there’s nothing to be said that jumping to 3 would be a winner over bidding 1NT after 1 -- 1 -- 1.