[ggwhiz]

petterb, on 2012-December-31, 15:40, said:

Aren't you in trouble if partner makes a slow signoff over your limit raise?

I vaguely recall just this situation in an NABC Appeals casebook that was rolled back since "you initially treated this as a limit raise". You probably need this treatment documented in your system notes as showing a distributional, non strength gf for protection as "I was always going to game" didn't cut it in committee.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-31, 16:32, said:

Someone mentioned using a forcing NT then jumping to 4M, which we do with 5 card support when a bit too strong for an immediate 4M. that plan does not have the same drawbacks.

But it has the more serious drawback that you must play a forcing 1NT.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-31, 17:33, said:

But it has the more serious drawback that you must play a forcing 1NT.

Then, don't do it if it is a drawback for you. We don't mind.

[ArtK78]

An alternative is to define this type of hand as a "good raise to 4♥" and bid 3NT. Many play this treatment, but it was primarily meant to differentiate a totally preemptive raise to 4 of a major from a similar hand with some values. So most would think that this hand is too strong for the bid. So, you have to have the agreement that the so-called "good raise to 4 of a major" is for a hand with near limit raise values and 5 or 6 of partner's major.