[akwoo]

I'm expecting opener to make a game try with 14 hcp and a singleton, or even a very distributional 13. This may be part of why I bid 2♥.

[mw64ahw]

johnu, on 2025-February-18, 22:01, said:

My initial evaluation:
a: 2♥ - Not really close to a limit raise
b: 3♥ - A minimum limit raise, but too good for a single raise to 2♥
c: 3♥ - A void, and 2 five card suits, either of which could provide extra tricks.

There was also some discussion of the opponents getting into the bidding, most likely in spades.

Some short simulations assuming partner has 11-14 HCP, 5+ hearts. With 15+ HCP, it seems that opener will either bid game unilaterally or make a game try over 2♥.

a: 2♥ 85%    3♥ 58%   4♥ 28%
    2♠ 77%     3♠ 53%     4♠ 28%

b: 2♥ 96%     3♥ 87%     4♥ 55%
    2♠ 62%     3♠ 30%     4♠ 9%

c: 2♥ 98%     3♥ 88%     4♥ 65%
    2♠ 76%     3♠ 50%     4♠ 21%

What's interesting is that with b) and c), 4♥ looks good and if the opponents play in spades, the bad spade break (and extra HCP) decreases chances of success. a) is interesting because opposite a minimum 1♥, this is a very competitive part score hand. Of course, opposite better opening bids, 4♥ plays better, and spade contract will fare worse since you have more defense.

Interesting stats.
For what it's worth I don't put any of these 3-card examples through 1N.

[DavidKok]

 jdiana, on 2025-February-18, 17:08, said:

This raises (again) the question of whether it's better to have a method that doesn't require us to go through 1NT with 3-card limit raises. (I think we're all assuming the OP plays some version of 2/1.) Nothing is simple in this game.

It is one point of several. I like 'support with support', but have to make a concession with slam interest hands and bid 2/1 first. With every other range the fit is confirmed immediately, and I think this is valuable.
In systems where some raises go through 1NT, 1♥-1♠, or a two-way 2/1, there is a risk of not being able to complete the description of your hand. Some of this is necessary, compromises are required with the finite bidding space available. I prefer to show the fit immediately but compromise elsewhere, while other systems have different tradeoffs.

On these particular hands my evaluation of the trick-taking potential is woven into the decision what to bid in a funny way. In particular, I'm not just "bidding what I have", because of my expectations on partners' hand. Because of this, the raise structure matters. Most of the time this is not as sensitive. Correspondingly, most of the time this would be masterminding. Bid what you have.
Then again I might confrontationally say "if you have hand A, but your methods make you treat it as B, get better methods".

[mw64ahw]

If of interest after 1♥ aiming for good precision
1♥-2/3/4♥ pre-emptive

1♥-1♠-1N playing KI5
.. 2♥ 9+hcp 3♥ weak raise
.. 3♥ 9+hcp 3♥ good raise
1♥-1♠-2m (2♦ isn't ♦)
.. 3♦ 3♥ 9+hcp good raise
.. 3♥ 3♥ 9+hcp weak raise
1♥-2♦ constructive raise, GF 3♥, GI 5♦, GF 6♦

1♥-2♠ 4+♥ 9+hcp lim+

In practice the bids below usually have a short suit.
1♥-2NT GI ♥, 6♣ invitational

1♥-3♣ <9hcp good raise
1♥-3♦ <9hcp weak raise

I also have some slam related bids which show a void or choice of slams e.g.
1♥-2♣
2♦-3♥ SI 3♥ & 5+♣