Eliminate the G-word forever

[Double !]

This post is intended for those who play the auctions 1NT- 4♣, 1NT -2♣- 2♦ - 4♣, and 2NT (or 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT) - 4♣ as asking how many aces partner has, and who play 1NT or 2NT (with or without the stayman and negative responses included in the bidding) as Quantitative (invitational to 6NT).

 

I believe that these venerable, traditional methods have their priorities reversed, and I would like to propose an alternative way that basically involves reversing the meanings of 4C and 4NT. If responder to the 1NT bidder wants to determine whether or not the partnership is in the slam zone, why not provide the 1NT opener various ways to co-operate rather than guessing with in-between hands, and still keep the bidding below 4NT ?

 

I suggest that the 4C response (1NT-4C, etc) should be quantitative and that opener responds in the following manner:

1) with a minimum 1NT opener, responder bids 4♦ over 4♣,

2) with an in-between hand, the 1NT opener rebids 4♥ over 4♣, and

3) with a maximum NT, opener rebids 4♠ over 4♣.

 

1) If opener rebids 4D showing a minimum, responder can now bid 4NT to play.

2) If opener rebids 4H (in-between hand, not sure), responder now bids 4♠ which tells opener to bid 4NT. Responder then passes or takes some other bid as responder sees as being appropriate.

3) if opener bids 4♠ over 4♣, showing a maximum, then 4NT can be whatever you wish: asking for aces, asking for controls, anything but passing 4NT.

 

The complement of this set of responses is that 4NT is always ace-asking ("now remember, Myrtle, 4NT is always Blackwood"), and, more importantly, it makes the G-word obsolete and unnecessary, and will make Roland happy.

 

It's not often that I dare to propose a different way of doing something or a new convention. It's just that this seemes to make more sense to me than the old G-word and 4NT quantitative method. I know that there are many of you who probably don't play the G-word, but many players in the states are taught this old method, and I think there is a better way.

 

I would appreciate feedback and comments. Just please monitor your language when cursing me or this proposal out. As always, thanks in advance.

 

DHL

[TimG]

I suggest that the 4C response (1NT-4C, etc) should be quantitative and that opener responds in the following manner:

1) with a minimum 1NT opener, responder bids 4♦ over 4♣,

2) with an in-between hand, the 1NT opener rebids 4♥ over 4♣, and

3) with a maximum NT, opener rebids 4♠ over 4♣.

So, opener has a 3 or 4 point range for his 1NT opening bid and is supposed to chop that into 3 strengths?

[Double !]

So, opener has a 3 or 4 point range for his 1NT opening bid and is supposed to chop that into 3 strengths?

 

Tim,

One doesn't need to split it into 3 rebids. One can simply play 4C as asking for min or max. That's not really the point. When playing the traditional way, responder has only one of two choices: to ask for aces or to ask for range. All I'm doing is proposing reversing the two bids. If need be, this gives responder two options. And if using 3 steps, it permits opener to say "I'm not sure". (Not trying to be super-sophisticated here.)

 

DHL

[keylime]

<modeled after the song Give Peace a Chance>

 

"....all we are saying is give Beechnut a chance......"

[kenrexford]

This suggestion reminds me of one of my favorite real-world occurrences playing bridge. Years ago, I played that 4♦ was this type of asking bid. Why, I cannot say, other than it was years ago. The step responses were the same, just one higher.

 

So, I opened 1NT red. LHO doubled, and partner decided that it was time to bid 4♦ preemptive. I've never seen a red four-level preemptive call in response to a 1NT opening, but this seemed right to her.

 

I had a maximum and responded 4NT.

 

She had the Ace of diamonds, and responded 5♦. This was cute, because we decided to use 5♦ after Opener's reply on HCP as Ace-asking.

 

I had two Aces -- 5NT.

 

She had the King of diamonds, and so, of course, 6♦ was her call.

 

Strangely, this asked for Kings, in case we were looking for a grand. As I held two Kings also, 6NT.

 

This could have ended things, but here void beckoned to her. 7♦.

 

As I was sure that she had underbid, as she had never bid a grand before, and that 7NT clearly must have play (I had AKQxx in clubs), I corrected to 7NT.

 

This was doubled, and, as the scoring was MP, I always redouble a grand.

 

When the lead hit the table, I was not impressed. However, I quickly realized that I had some chances here. Not of making the grand, but of actually losing every trick. This would be difficult -- losing 13 tricks after a freely bid grand slam. But, I found the line and scored up the only semi-legitimate -7600 I've ever seen. I call it semi-legitimate because the play to lose all 13 tricks was quite brilliant.

 

===========================

 

Seriously, though, the convention is not advised. However, I am seeing some merits to something I think is called Baron. 4♣ is quantitative. 4NT declines. All other bids are natural.

 

Each side bids 4-card suits up-the-line. If you rebid a suit, that shows five. If you bid a suit partner bypassed (denying four), that shows five. 4NT agrees the last bid suit and is RKCB. You will "canape" if you happen to be 5-4 and the 4-card suit is reached first.

 

I've been testing it out recently, and it seems to have some benefits.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

You might want to play CONFIT(Control/fit asking) instead of 4NT for Aces.

If you do not have 10+ controls, you get to play 3NT. With 10+ controls you may now explore for a fit to play slam.

 

I have played 1NT-3H* and 2NT-3H* as CONFIT for several decades now.

 

1NT-4C*=a transfer to diamonds in my current methods.

 

1NT-4NT*=a 'passable' slam try in clubs.

 

I use a lot of Last Train and cuebids to avoid bidding bad(inferior?) slams. The use of Blackwood is to avoid bad slams.

 

The 4NT and 4C bids are both over used. People trot out old Black and sometimes(often?) have no idea of what to bid even after the Ace reply is made.

 

Reese gave up Blackwood as a test for an entire year. He did not miss an Ace asking bid very much and found that 4NT as 'always' natural cleared up many auctions. I was asked by one partner to try that 4NT 'always natural' method and we found that Ace asking was much over rated.

 

Regards,

Robert

[foo]

When the lead hit the table, I was not impressed. However, I quickly realized that I had some chances here. Not of making the grand, but of actually losing every trick. This would be difficult -- losing 13 tricks after a freely bid grand slam. But, I found the line and scored up the only semi-legitimate -7600 I've ever seen. I call it semi-legitimate because the play to lose all 13 tricks was quite brilliant.

ROTFLMAO! Thanks, I needed that B)

[Fluffy]

what about this: you play 4NT as quantitative and you set a trump before bidding 4NT when you wanna know keycards.

 

You can use 4♣ to show a 3055 with 5 top honnors, it will never happen, but if it ever does, it will be more sueful than ****CENSORED*** (G-Word)

[whereagles]

I have a simple rule to end all gerbers:

 

"4♣ is NEVER gerber"

 

There. You can bow to me in awe now :(

[skjaeran]

I DO have the G-word on my CC, and have had for years. But I can't remember using the convention a single time in my carreer. So maybe I should scrap it. (Of course, if I did, it would start coming up a lot.)

 

I did play without any form of Blackwood for five years (1984-89). Of course we had other methods to show how many keycards we had (a renewed version of the old Culbertson 4-5NT convention combined with strict rules for cuebidding).

[pork rind]

:P ken u may be the funniest man alive

[jtfanclub]

:P

 

I use 1NT-3♣ as Gerber. Lets me ask about aces and stop at 3NT if we're missing too many.

 

I've forgotten what we were using 3♣ for previously so I don't miss it.

[nige1]

The moderators should delete this heretical thread forthwith. Otherwise they risk reprisals from Xebon, and other high priests of http://www.poorbridge.com/

[foo]

A phrase I learned in NA-

"Gerber is baby food. Do you need baby food?".

 

In just about every partnership I have:

Playing Strong NT's, the only auction that is Gerber is 1N-4♣

Playing Weak or less NT's, Gerber does not exist.

 

Note that Gerber does not exist over 2N either.

[han]

Over a 1NT opening Arend and I play 4C as asking for aces or keycards in exactly 5 different auctions. Our agreement is crystal clear, I do not understand the problem.