[straube]

I'm actually thinking about just using help suit game tries here. The thing is opener is limited and responder is limited to a strictly invitational hand. If I use 3C as an asking bid then I haven't as much room as if 3C is a telling bid. I'm thinking that responder has already factored in whether he has a fourth trump, shortness and what all into his decision to represent his hand as a limit raise. On occasion opener will have some freak that is interested in slam, but he can use HSGTs or splinter but most of the time we won't need anything too fancy. Anyone have thoughts on this?

[whereagles]

I think shortness bids are better in evaluating how well the hands mesh. But..

[rhm]

iandayre, on 2014-May-18, 18:14, said:

Some years ago a top expert and author said "The fourth trump is the most underrated topic in the game" and my experience has led me to agree. I would not consider any direct forcing or limit raise that did not promise 4 card support. Yes, you can construct hands when it doesn't work out but I have played semiforcing NT with 2/1 for many years with consistent good results when 1NT is passed out, even when responder held the 3 card limit raise.

jallerton, on 2014-May-17, 04:03, said:

Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3-card raises through the unbalanced 1NT response to be a major issue. Maybe it's because when Responder has a singleton and Opener was going to pass 1NT (so typically 5332), the opponents have a 9- or 10-card fit and one of them has often bid already.

I do not buy this.
While bidding a semi-forcing 1NT with a balanced 3 card limit raise is fine, bidding 1NT with an unbalanced 3 card limit raise would make me nervous that we will miss game or that opponents will interfere.
If I have an unbalanced limit 3-card raise, which means I will have significant less HCP strength compared to a 3-card balanced limit raise, I want to make a limit raise immediately and I do want to keep opponents out of the bidding.
I value the preemptive effect a limit raise has, in particular when our side has a heart fit.

While the distinction between 4-card support and 3-card support can be important, my feeling is it is overrated and overdone. The top expert and author was Mike Lawrence and it is one of the great myths in American bidding theory.
Of course all else being equal chances are that a hand with only 3-card support will be weaker than with 4 card support. This is a triviality and nothing else has been shown by Mike Lawrence.
For me a 3 card limit raise must have compensating strength elsewhere. Side suit shortage might just be such compensation.
For example over 1♥ I would make a limit raise with ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxxx or ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx, force to game with ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx and bid 1NT with ♠Qx ♥Kxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx.
Bidding 1NT with the first hand and hearing LHO bid 2♠ is not my cup of tea.
Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3- card unbalanced limit raises with 4 card limit raises to be a major issue.
Game bidding is nine times out of ten just a quantitative judgement process, not a precise evaluation whether side suit values fit or not. Most of the time we neither have the super fit nor the total duplication of values in the side suits.
I have no need finding that out until dummy comes down or unless slam comes into consideration. Games are often made, because this type of information is not revealed to the defense.
For example a trump lead is much more attractive, when dummy is known to have three card support and unattractive if not.
Keeping the defense in the dark is worth more than a hundred gadgets.

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

Rainer, I appreciate your input and have felt pretty much the same way. Perhaps the only times I really care whether partner has a fourth trump vs the third is when I have a long second suit that needs to be established by ruffs or when I have poor trump. How do you feel about help suit game tries? I don't have space enough for shortness bids but if partner hears a help suit game try he can upgrade when he either has honors there or has a fourth trump and shortness and has controls in the other suits. Or if not HSGTs what would you use the intervening bids for?

[MickyB]

Agree with Rainer. Differentiating 4-card limit from 3-card limit allows a minimum 5431 to accept just the former and a good weak NT to accept just the latter, but surely the loss from just accepting a 3+card invite on both hands would be quite small.

[whereagles]

Well, go figure. Some other authors dispute that the 4th trump is that vital. See e.g. Lawrence/Wirgren "I fought the law".

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2014-May-19, 08:55, said:

I'm actually thinking about just using help suit game tries here. The thing is opener is limited and responder is limited to a strictly invitational hand. If I use 3C as an asking bid then I haven't as much room as if 3C is a telling bid. I'm thinking that responder has already factored in whether he has a fourth trump, shortness and what all into his decision to represent his hand as a limit raise. On occasion opener will have some freak that is interested in slam, but he can use HSGTs or splinter but most of the time we won't need anything too fancy. Anyone have thoughts on this?

You can have your cake and eat it too here if you want, at the expense of giving away information unnecessarily. Take a look back at my post:

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-19, 07:32, said:

How about 1♠ - 2NT = limit raise or maxi-splinter, and then after 3♣ relay:
3♦ = 4 card limit (3♥ try)
3♥ = 3 card limit max
3♠ = 3 card limit min
3NT = void maxi-splinter (4♣ asks)
4♣ = maxi-splinter with singleton club
4♦ = maxi-splinter with singleton diamond
4♥ = maxi-splinter with singleton heart

Now add 1♠ - 2NT; 3♦ = HSGT game try ♦; 1♠ - 2NT; 3♥ = HSGT game try ♥; 1♠ - 2NT; 3♠ = HSGT game try ♣. The caveat is that you now need to tell the defence more about dummy when you do not have any game interest opposite the limit raise. But I think this is the kind of thing you are looking for.