Gerber

[Zelandakh]

I only play gerber as a jump after NT bids. Still, I almost never used it. Anyway, it's difficult to assign some other meanings here.

Really?! 1NT - 4C = both majors...2NT - 4C = diamonds or 2NT - 4C = majors amongst several other options. Even 2-under transfers are more useful than Gerber here imho. Whether 4C is more useful as Minorwood or as a slam try (or better) when clubs is agreed is an open question - both methods have their plusses. When another suit is agreed then a jump to 4C can usually be a splinter, again more useful than Gerber imho.

[32519]

The Advanced and Expert Bridge Forum had another thread discussing “Problems with RKC for minors.” The thread was started by kgr back in April 2010. It can be found here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38434-still-problems-with-rkc-for-minors/

Kgr’s thread received 30 replies for anyone wanting to read them.

 

We are making steady progress towards locking down the Gerber / Minorwood discussion. The goal is still to provide a thread with as much info as possible for all to make better decisions regarding their use (especially for newcomers to bridge). If you have anything to add to the discussion don’t give up just yet.

[Antrax]

32519, I do applaud the initiative, but could you maybe summarize in a sentence what the argument is? "Gerber is a bad convention because it's..." confusing? redundant? not worth the lack of space?

[gordontd]

"Gerber is a bad convention, like many others, when it's used in inappropriate situations".

 

I don't think it should be put much more strongly than that.

[paulg]

I see ten times the number of key-card and minorwood misunderstandings watching the 'experts' on BBO Vugraph, and international players practising, than I see Gerber misunderstandings at the club. It has its place.

[Vampyr]

Really?! 1NT - 4C = both majors...2NT - 4C = diamonds or 2NT - 4C = majors amongst several other options. Even 2-under transfers are more useful than Gerber here imho.

I'm not sure about this last bit -- 1-under transfers are just about as useful as 2-under transfers.

[S2000magic]

"Gerber is a bad convention, like many others, when it's used in inappropriate situations".

Is there a convention whose name couldn't be substituted for "Gerber" in that sentence without making it false? I cannot think of one.

[mycroft]

Basically, Blackwood is bad because, unlike its original intent of "keeping us out of bad slams", it is used by some - usually the weaker players (note, not newer) - as "only way to get to slam". One can tell these pairs, because they confidently bid 4NT, then after the "N-1" answer, agonise and bid 5, and make 6. Of course, they also bid 6 and make 4 because they have all the aces and not enough tricks, or all the aces but one and, well, they don't have the K either.

 

We all know this, but I'm stating it for argument.

 

Some weaker players know this, but instead of realising that they actually need different slam tools, hit on Gerber as a way to get out in 4 instead of 5, where hopefully if they don't have enough aces, they can get away with lead to the A, back to the K, ruff. *This*, added to the fact that there are almost always better uses for 4♣ than Gerber, is why there is so much hate for the G word.

 

Not that Gerber, when not used correctly, is bad - as people are saying, that's common to every convention - but that it is so often not used correctly, *and* it is so rarely (compared to the alternatives) the correct tool, that at best it's a waste of a call, and at worst, so much worse.

 

For these people (and their non-regular partners, like me), playing "No Gerber Ever" (and, frankly, "No Blackwood Ever") will get better results. It won't get them to slams, because they *still* won't learn other slam tools, but it will help their game. Won't happen, though.

 

I have suggested to some pairs stuck in this rut that for the next two months, they are not allowed to bid Blackwood/Gerber and not go to slam if they are off only one Ace/Keycard. "yes, you will get to noplay slams; but not as many as you're worried about. And you will look at the ones where it is noplay, and say 'what makes it noplay', and 'how do we avoid these?'" Come back after the two months, and we'll talk about those questions. It sometimes works :-)

 

My mind is such that (even as a systems wonk and with a memory for conventions and being able to work stuff out in context if I forget) I can understand exactly two G rules:

• No Gerber Ever, and
  
• Gerber Directly after NT openings, responses and rebids; (with whatever discussion we've had about "and after transfers and Stayman")
  

Anything else and my response will be "I'm sorry, I'll never be able to remember that." Like other things I won't play, I'm not all that interested in training to be able to, either - but I don't say that.

[S2000magic]

For these people (and their non-regular partners, like me), playing "No Gerber Ever" (and, frankly, "No Blackwood Ever") will get better results. It won't get them to slams, because they *still* won't learn other slam tools, but it will help their game. Won't happen, though.

In Five Weeks to Winning Bridge, Alfred Sheinwold suggests that, if you believe that you're overusing Blackwood (the same would apply to Gerber), that you decide to stop using it at all for a while, and use other tools (e.g., cuebidding), to decide when to bid a slam. When you return to Blackwood, you'll have a better understanding where it fits in the slam bidding toolbox.

 

The rub - as you point out - is the "if you believe . . ." part.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure about this last bit -- 1-under transfers are just about as useful as 2-under transfers.

 

At the four level? The advantage that South African Texas gives responder, to decide to protect his own tenaces rather than the ones his partner might have, seems considerable to me.

[Vampyr]

At the four level? The advantage that South African Texas gives responder, to decide to protect his own tenaces rather than the ones his partner might have, seems considerable to me.

 

I did say "just about" -- after all, the one-suited hand is not that likely to have tenaces. I don't know whether you actually play SAT, but do you or anyone else who plays it or doesn't play it find that responder often has tenaces to protect? And that such a suit is often the normal opening lead?

 

Anyway, the extra step is a sacrifice I am willing to make to play 4♣ as pick-a-major. I find that this comes up a bit more frequently than Texas xfer hands. I don't know if it is different for strong NTers.

[blackshoe]

I don't either. I've played both, but not enough to gather any useful data on this. B-)

[gnasher]

The usual reason for playing two-step transfers is so that you can use them as a slam-try, with opener bidding the in-between suit to show interest.

 

If you're just using them as a way to sign off in game, the only significant benefit is that you're less likely to play in a transfer - 1NT-4♦ is much less likely to be passed than 1NT-4♥.

[Mbodell]

The usual reason for playing two-step transfers is so that you can use them as a slam-try, with opener bidding the in-between suit to show interest.

 

If you're just using them as a way to sign off in game, the only significant benefit is that you're less likely to play in a transfer - 1NT-4♦ is much less likely to be passed than 1NT-4♥.

 

I think if you play weak nt the ability to decide who declares is a pretty reasonable advantage. Both hands are about equally strong, but one might be better to lead through then the other.

[32519]

The SAYC and 2/1 Discussion Forum had a thread titled: "Name the worst convention." The thread received 6 pages of responses. Gerber was mentioned quite a few times. Flannery was also mentioned. You can read it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3537-name-the-worst-convention/page__st__60

[Vampyr]

The usual reason for playing two-step transfers is so that you can use them as a slam-try, with opener bidding the in-between suit to show interest.

 

 

Is this going to happen a lot, that the well-defined balanced hand is going to have a slam try? And it is a little high to start exploring. Using Jacoby transfers opener can make a super-accept or responder can show slam interest, so it doesn't seem to me that the two-under transfers are very valuable.

[mikeh]

I'm surprised that no-one has commented on the response scheme that the OP described as used by his club-mates: 1st step 0 or 4, second step 1 or 3.

 

This is a basic error. There is a reason why keycard responses are 1430 or 0314.

 

The asking bidder will almost never have any trouble identifying whether opener has 0 or 3, otoh, or 1 or 4 oto.

 

Admittedly, asking bidder will usually be able to distinguish 1 or 3, and should always be able to tell 0 from 4, but 'usually' isn't the same as 'almost never', and this is too great a cost in the opinion of many (I mean, has anyone ever seen 1340 keycard?)

 

As for gerber, there is nothing wrong with the convention, imo. I play it myself in almost all partnerships....the only one in which I didn't used a form of relay with strong hands responding to 1N and a different structure over 2N, so it wasn't needed.

 

However, my experience of playing in club games is that many non-experts use 4♣ as keycard in suit auctions, which is not exactly what Mr. Gerber proposed, as I recall.

 

Gerber is fine if it is confined to notrump auctions and is a JUMP over a notrump bid, where the 4♣ bidder is so far, in the auction, unlimited.

 

Where a lot of non-experts go wrong is in thinking that they can use 4♣ in virtually any auction as Ace asking.

 

In fairness, they will usually survive this mis-use, and in addition, they usually don't understand bidding well enough to realize that there are better uses for the 4♣ call in just about every such auction.

 

Such players, in my experience, don't know how to cuebid. And learning how to bid collaboratively, with both partners exchanging information in a fairly subtle way, is far more difficult, and far more intimidating, for the average club player than simply agreeing that 4♣ asks for Aces.

 

Bridge is a game of percentages. Those of us who are serious about the game will devote a lot of time and effort to finding ways to improve our bidding even on situations that may arise perhaps once or twice a year. In my most detailed partnership, that lasted for some 5 years, we had agreements on situations that, as far as I recall, never came up....but we were ready for them if they did, and if we remembered!

 

Most club players, even those who play in an established partnership, simply aren't interested in that level of effort. They have an agreement that performs adequately 80-85% of the time it comes up. Even when it fails, their results are comparable to the rest of the (weak) field. And they effectively have no other use for the call because they don't know how to cuebid or engage in auctions full of inferences.

 

Abandoning gerber or limiting it to its intended place, in notrump auctions, would leave them effectively without a use for a call, and having to bid 4N rather than 4♣.

 

No serious bridge player would long use gerber other than over 1N, but the vast majority of bridge players aren't and never will be serious.

[jdeegan]

No serious bridge player would long use gerber other than over 1N, but the vast majority of bridge players aren't and never will be serious.

:P Thanks for the intelligent and common sense observations. However, if one simply defines ANY 4♣ bid as a control asking bid (gerber), then it becomes possible to find out about controls and stop at four of a major when necessary due to lack of controls. One only has to find a suitable artificial replacement for 4♣ as a cue bid or 4♣ as natural, a bid which in my experience doesn't come up very often. You might, for example, abandon minorwood or kickback as control asking or even the serious/non-serious 3NT and use that bid to show the natural club bid.

[mikeh]

:P Thanks for the intelligent and common sense observations. However, if one simply defines ANY 4♣ bid as a control asking bid (gerber), then it becomes possible to find out about controls and stop at four of a major when necessary due to lack of controls. One only has to find a suitable artificial replacement for 4♣ as a cue bid or 4♣ as natural, a bid which in my experience doesn't come up very often. You might, for example, abandon minorwood or kickback as control asking or even the serious/non-serious 3NT and use that bid to show the natural club bid.

That sounds to me like a solution in need of a problem.

 

The notion that I need a 4♣ keycard ask in order to stay at the 4 level in a major is not something that strikes me as necessary in a reasonably good partnership structure, nor does it seem, at least on first blush, as providing any benefit commensurate with the cost.

[AlexJonson]

Almost nobody plays gerber 'round here', and I'd say they would generally be better off if they did, because they don't use the bid for anything else.

 

Obviously in A/E they would do much better.

[aguahombre]

Anyway nobody who plays Minorwood has any business criticising those who play Gerber.

The fact is, no one who uses either tool as part of their agreed methods has any business criticising those who choose the other. An affirmative argument based on some knowledge of the other camp's methods is quite different from criticising people to use a certain tool.

 

Nigel_k's post is in fact a criticism of people who use one method (Minorwood) without him giving any context or any discussion points, whatsoever.

 

And it somehow merits plusses from two forum members?? OTOH, see Post #44, where Mike actually contributes to the Gerber debate without snide comment about the people who use Gerber.

[Flameous]

Is this going to happen a lot, that the well-defined balanced hand is going to have a slam try? And it is a little high to start exploring. Using Jacoby transfers opener can make a super-accept or responder can show slam interest, so it doesn't seem to me that the two-under transfers are very valuable.

 

I think you misunderstood this a bit. Point is that 4m bid also includes mild slam invites and when opener holds a good hand for slam, he bids the middle step, very much similar to namyats. Also you can still play 4M as natural, which means that when you happen to hold the tenaces yourself, you can just bid the game.

 

Admittedly, asking bidder will usually be able to distinguish 1 or 3, and should always be able to tell 0 from 4, but 'usually' isn't the same as 'almost never', and this is too great a cost in the opinion of many (I mean, has anyone ever seen 1340 keycard?)

 

Turbo users have to distinguish 1/3 on great many auctions and occasionally 2/4. Of course partnerships that can play Turbo, have quite a bit more detailed agreements about Serious 3NT and such that they will never have problems while some random Gerber users easily might.

 

 

In many relay systems 4♣ is always some sort of control asking bid, not that it really relates to anything. Just found it quite interesting.

 

During my early ages, I found out about Baby RKC (3NT), and I tried to make use of it all the time. (I knew about cuebidding so Gerber was still no-no :P ) I think it's quite natural for beginner that when you have a bid that gives you easy direct information, you want to use it because other methods are simply harder. Now-a-days I would never play Baby RKC over Non-serious 3NT. :D

[Siegmund]

One thing that surprises me about these Gerber threads...

 

A sentiment most recently expressed by mikeh:

Where a lot of non-experts go wrong is in thinking that they can use 4♣ in virtually any auction as Ace asking.

 

A lot? Really? I have met about two pairs in the last 20 years who use Gerber over suit bids. (Both of them were "life novices" who had never had a cuebidding auction in their lives.)

 

On the other hand, I have met a lot of pairs who agree that 1NT-Pass-4NT is Blackwood, and had a lot of pickup partners unexpectedly yank my quantitative raises to 5 of a suit. (The more enlightened of these use 1NT-5NT as a quantitative notrump raise, "since 4NT is already taken;" the less enlightened just think having an ace-asking bid is a top priority in every auction.)

 

If we compare the two crimes -- " thinking that they can use 4♣ in virtually any auction as Ace asking" and "thinking that they can use 4NT in virtually any auction as Ace asking" -- the latter error is the more common, by about two orders of magnitude, in my experience.

 

Except on this forum, when I hear someone say "I don't play Gerber," I assume he is a B/I who has not yet grasped 1NT-4NT quantitative, and expect a competent unknown to play Gerber over NT for sure, and probably also after Stayman.

[Vampyr]

If we compare the two crimes -- " thinking that they can use 4♣ in virtually any auction as Ace asking" and "thinking that they can use 4NT in virtually any auction as Ace asking" -- the latter error is the more common, by about two orders of magnitude, in my experience.

 

 

This is true in my experience, though two orders of magnitude seems a bit high; though I wouldn't know. I don't have enough knowledge of thousands of pairs' bidding structure.

 

Anyway I did witness the auction 1NT-4NT ace asking just the other day.

[jdeegan]

The notion that I need a 4♣ keycard ask in order to stay at the 4 level in a major is not something that strikes me as necessary in a reasonably good partnership structure, nor does it seem, at least on first blush, as providing any benefit commensurate with the cost.

:P What if you simply swapped the meaning of 4♣ and 4NT? Even I can remember that. That way you start your RKC asking bid sequence at 4♣ when appropriate, and you can show your club control (or support, if that is what 4♣ would have meant) with 4NT. The main thing you lose is the ability to play exactly 4♣. You also have to remember 4NT bypasses the other suits when cue bidding to show clubs, so there are some negative inferences about your holding in the other suits.