Bidding 4C/4NT

[diana_eva]

I have a lot of sympathy for the proposed method, to be honest. I started out with 4C always Gerber for simplicity and for a real beginner that was indeed super easy to understand and to follow. In my beginner years I simply did not know what to do with a big hand. So many continuations, what's forcing? Wait, is that natural? Why is my partner jumping? etc. I passed many frustrated partners in cue-bids, and raised splinters to slams.

 

Problem is, as others pointed out, no matter what you tell your partners everyone else will NOT play this way, and you will eventually need to learn the correct way to play these two conventions. Now that you are considering making a change maybe it would be better to switch to: "let's play Gerber the way everyone else does" with 4NT always Blackwood. Then, step 2: Let's play 4NT like everyone else does.

 

This will move you forward rather than hold you back IMO.

[helene_t]

Diana, do you think "4♣ is always Gerber" is easier for beginners to remember than "4♣ is always natural"? If so, Is it because it is unclear whether 4♣ is forcing or not? If so, I suppose the rule could be "4 of a minor is always natural and forcing".

[diana_eva]

Diana, do you think "4♣ is always Gerber" is easier for beginners to remember than "4♣ is always natural"? If so, Is it because it is unclear whether 4♣ is forcing or not? If so, I suppose the rule could be "4 of a minor is always natural and forcing".

 

It's easy to remember because it is always the same thing. And it's useful because it allows ace asking at low level. Often, a beginner will not know whether they want to be in slam or in game with a big hand. If they have enough aces, they will bid slam. If they don't they'll sign off in game. Simple rule of thumb: we have many points (they don't know how many, look at Keith's sequence? Does it give you any idea of who has what? No - all they want is to be in game or slam, depending on how many aces are there). We have this tool that allows us to check aces and not go at the dreaded 5th level.

[diana_eva]

Keithhus, do you really mean that for example

(3♠)-dbl-(pass)-4♣

is gerber, so with

♠432

♥432

♦432

♣5432

you would have to bid 5♣ in response to partner's double?

 

Of course they wouldn't bid 4C or 5C. They have no points, so just pass ;) And on a more serious note, X is probably penalty anyway in that system :)

[echo25]

It is often more important to know partner's hand distribution than how many aces he has. Sometimes we want to inform our partner about our values in other suit. Not every slam has to be bid via blackwood or gerber. That's why IMHO you shouldn't agree that 4!c/NT are always aces asking. The most known examples when 4NT is not blackwood:

1NT-4NT (inv to 6NT)

After that, the opener can bid his 5 card minor, if he has it, or even nice 4 card suit and you will end with great 6 in minor.

1NT-2!c-2M-4NT (just as above)

1NT-2!d/!h-2!h/!s-4NT (same)

 

To be honest, I've never used gerber and I don't remember having any problem with that. The major problem is that players overuse blackwood and they don't use other methods, for example cue bids. Bid low and you will get much information about partner's hand.

[keithhus]

Keithhus, do you really mean that for example

(3♠)-dbl-(pass)-4♣

is gerber, so with

♠432

♥432

♦432

♣5432

you would have to bid 5♣ in response to partner's double?

 

Helene, I appreciate there are limitations to my approach, hence why I asked the question, but I felt it would be beneficial in the majority of cases. However, there does seem to be very limited , if any support. I think I need to scrap my current approach and use gerber solely after NT and learn to use control bids, although this requires a partner of similar mind.

 

Thank you to all respondents. I will study everyone's comments and may revert if I need any clarification. Thanks once again.

[diana_eva]

Helene, I appreciate there are limitations to my approach, hence why I asked the question, but I felt it would be beneficial in the majority of cases. However, there does seem to be very limited , if any support. I think I need to scrap my current approach and use gerber solely after NT and learn to use control bids, although this requires a partner of similar mind.

 

Thank you to all respondents. I will study everyone's comments and may revert if I need any clarification. Thanks once again.

 

You might also investigate on ways to keep the bidding low before even getting to ace asking. For instance in the example hand that manudude gave earlier, you mentioned a 3S bid to show 6 spades and a strong hand. But that jump eats up a lot of space when a simple 1S is 100% forcing. Then you have a lot of space to find out more about partner's hand before considering slam.

[neufchatel]

Remember; If using Gerber to ask for aces in a suit contract, it must be alerted in ACBL events.

[helene_t]

we are in EBU, not ACBL, and artificial 4-level bids are alertable if an only if they take place in the first round of bidding. It doesn't matter if it is response to a nt or a suit opening, and it doesn't matter if it asks for aces or shows a singleton or show a control or whatever.

[masonbarge]

because of some recent experiences, I am thinking of advising my partners that 4 Clubs is always gerber and 4 NT is always Blackwood, regardless of previous bids. Bearing in mind the level I am playing at, do you think this is a sensible approach? Thanks

 

I would suggest the following starting point with a strange partner:

 

1. Any 4NT bid over a suit bid by partner is Blackwood.

2. Any 4NT bid over any actual NT bid by partner is quantitative.

3. Any 4♣ bid over any actual NT bid is Gerber. (By "actual NT" I mean a NT bid that suggests partner wants to play in NT, i.e., not Unusual NT. Another example would be 2♣ - 2NT, if you use 2♥ as a negative response and 2NT as a response showing a heart suit. There, although responder says "NT" he is not suggesting that you play in NT but showing a heart suit, i.e, the "actual" bid is hearts - thus, a 4♣ rebid would be natural and a 4NT rebid would be Blackwood.)

 

4. A 4NT bid over a suit establishes that suit as trump for purposes of RKC, unless another suit has been bid and raised. You have to think ahead here, especially if you play Roman Key Card. A good auction to discuss with partner might be 2♥ - 2NT (for feature, say) - 3♠ - 4NT. This is Blackwood under Rule #1, but would presumably establish hearts as trumps, since responder could have forced with 2♠ under most systems.

 

You will lose some natural bids with these rules, but unless partner is someone I play with a LOT, and I am sure we are on the same page, I'd rather lose the occasional 4♣ bid than get into a ridiculous slam sequence where one person thinks we are bidding number of Aces, and the other that we are bidding suits or cue bids.

 

Another lost bid, here, would be the 2♣ - 2NT (heart suit) - 4NT sequence, where opener might very well want to bid a quantitative 4NT. I am going to tell you, unless your bidding is fairly advanced, being rock-solid on whether a bid is ace-asking is worth giving up the quantitative 4NT over a suit bid.

[keithhus]

If this is what you are comfortable with, then continue to play this way. After all, it does not matter what other people say; the real reason to make a change in your system is that you realise that your current methods are inadequate. Then you will consider a change and you will know what improvement you are gaining, you will know what you are giving up in exchange etc. You will own the change.

 

Right now I am more interested in the 3♠ bid.

Oops, you are right, double jump is weak. Thanks

[keithhus]

You might also investigate on ways to keep the bidding low before even getting to ace asking. For instance in the example hand that manudude gave earlier, you mentioned a 3S bid to show 6 spades and a strong hand. But that jump eats up a lot of space when a simple 1S is 100% forcing. Then you have a lot of space to find out more about partner's hand before considering slam.

 

Thanks Diana. My response was wrong,. In my system, a double jump is weak showing 7 cards. Should have bid 2 S ( single jump) showing strength (16 pts and 6 cards). Interestingly, most responders show a 1S response! I take your point about maintaining head room.u

[SixOfWands]

There are lots of better slam conventions obviously but I teach my beginners that:

 

1. 
    
   
2. 4C is Gerber when partner's last bid was in NT
   
3. 4NT is Blackwood when partner's last bid was in a suit
   
4. 4NT is quantitative when partner's last bid was in NT.
   

 

Completely clear and simple.

 

Also works pretty well because you never want to play in 4C when partner has just bid NT.

[kontoleon]

The positive thing about the 4NT Many times can stops on 5 level.

0 key is 5♣, so if you need at least one more key(you have 3) to score slam is good enought to bet 4NT.

 

The some thing is with with 5♦ From ♥,♠, is just litle deference things, you stel bet 4NT with hi team points even you have 2 H key or just 1 on S(hopes that totally have at least 3 with team) From this senario why you need low bet, when you try slam?

[kontoleon]

Bid these 2 hands (south dealer):

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq86hkq52dj2c872&n=skj7532ha96dak5c5]133|200[/hv]

 

Get to 6S? Good. Now bid them with south's hearts and clubs switched.

I am not expert but i personal i just risk the 4nt here if i am N with open hand by dummy, 3 key and singeton C is no big risk here the 4NT.

 

I cant imagine hand with 12 points that is no enought here from at least 5s...

[echo25]

I am not expert but i personal i just risk the 4nt here if i am N with open hand by dummy, 3 key and singeton C is no big risk here the 4NT.

 

I cant imagine hand with 12 points that is no enought here from at least 5s...

 

AQxx

xxx

Qxx

KQJ

14 points, 5S-1 after heart lead.

[GrahamJson]

I suggest that 4C is only Gerber opposite a 1nt opening.

 

4nt is Blackwood if your or p's last bid was not nt.

[m1cha]

Bid these 2 hands (south dealer):

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq86hkq52dj2c872&n=skj7532ha96dak5c5]133|200[/hv]

 

Get to 6S? Good. Now bid them with south's hearts and clubs switched.

 

As is,

1♣ - 1♠ -

2♠ - 3♥ -

4♠ - 4NT -

5♦ - 5♥ -

[♠Q] - 6♠ -

- -

 

Reversed,

1♣ - 1♠ -

2♠ - 3♥ -

3♠ - 4♠ -

- -

 

Long-suit trial bids (3♥) are meant for evaluating the chances of a full game, but can just as well be used as a kind of low-level quantitative slam invite. With the reversed hand, S has a sure minimum hand and declines. With the first hand, S might accept with optimum ♥ support in spite of minimum count.

 

By the way I think we shouldn't worry if we don't reach slam here. The slam is cold, of course, but take ♥Q and give ♣Q, or take ♣7 and give ♦7, and it fails.

[m1cha]

I suggest that 4C is only Gerber opposite a 1nt opening.

 

4nt is Blackwood if your or p's last bid was not nt.

 

It seems to be a kind of standard these days that 4NT is a quantitative invite if partner's last bid was NT (and Blackwood otherwise), and that 4♣ is Gerber only directly after a natural NT opening (1NT, 2NT) or it's equivalent (such as 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT). The reason for using Gerber here is not to keep the bidding low - which is not necessary as explained by helene_t - but because 4NT is not available.

 

Consequently I sympathize with the position to play Gerber whenever 4NT is quantitative, that is, whenever partner's last bid was NT, though it appears to be non-standard and though I am not playing this myself when ♣ was bid naturally during the auction. Right, if I think of running from 3NT for some reason, 4♣ does not look like a winning contract in the long run. Rather pass, risk 5♣ or try to sign off in 3♣ earlier. But when ♣ was bid naturally and 6♣ is a possibility, I want to play 4♣ as a slam try for this suit (perhaps Optional Minorwood). I don't have a partner who would play Gerber with me in this situation. But as a working rule for the beginner level it seems good to me.

 

Gerber over suit contracts should not be taught any more, it will be mistaken for splinter, for a cue bid or else by most others players in modern bridge. Once you start feeling Blackwood is no help in minor suit contracts, learn Minorwood or perhaps Kickback.

 

By the way, some here mentioned that asking for aces is overrated, and I don't object. But I also suggest that some of these quantitative invites are also overrated if partner's point count is already restricted to a narrow range. When you have a good trick source such as a 6-card minor, you can make 13 tricks with a combined 31 HCP, so there are more important things to check than a single HCP above maximum in partner's hand. For example, just yesterday I had this bidding with a robot partner:

 

2♣ - 2NT -

3NT - 4NT -

6NT - - -

 

The thing is, 3NT was labeled as exactly 22 HCP and 4NT was labeled as 12 HCP and a quantitative slam invite. So I looked at my hand wondering if I have a 22-point minimum or a 22-point maximum, found my nice 5-card ♣ suit and bid 6NT, going down 1, where Gerber or Blackwood would have shown the two missing aces :( . Though I believe if one of my regular partners bid 4♣ here, I would understand it as Stayman, not Gerber, but this is a pretty exceptional case.

[zillahandp]

No forget gerber unless it goes 1/2nts, 4c or forget it entirely please

[m1cha]

No forget gerber unless it goes 1/2nts, 4c or forget it entirely please

I am aware your treatment is standard, so it must have a point, but unfortunately I don't understand this point. So could you or someone else please explain me what is wrong about 4♣ as Gerber in situations such as

 

1♥ - 1♠ -

2♥ - 3♦ -

3NT - 4♣

 

1♥ - 1♠ -

2♦ - 3NT -

4♣

 

1♥ - 1♠ -

2NT* - 4♣** -

* 18 - 19 HCP with 5-card ♥, no ♠ fit

** 3♣ would be natural and forcing to game

 

1♦ - 1♥ -

1♠ - 2♣* -

2NT** - 4♣***

* 4th suit forcing, at least invitational

** ♣ stop, (semi-)balanced, 2 or less ♥ cards

*** 3♣ would be natural and forcing to game (unless ... 1♥ ... 3♣ is)

 

if I think we're strong enough for a slam based on points or tricks but I want to check if 2 aces are missing. Of course I can bid 4NT quantitative if I prefer.

[manudude03]

In short, asking for aces doesn't tell you if you have 12 tricks, only that you aren't losing the first two. And by using 4C as gerber, you are giving up a very useful bid (to find how well the hands fit) for a relatively minor benefit. As for the 3 sequences you posted:

 

1. 4C looks like the bid with AKxxx xx AKxx Ax. The problem with having 4C as gerber here is what do you do if partner shows say no aces and 2 kings? Partner could easily have Qx Kxxxxx QJ KQJ or something where slam is hopeless* or xx KQJTxx Qx KJx where slam is almost cold.

*Actually 6S/NT has play, but you still wouldn't want to be in it.

 

2. 4C here is traditionally natural and tends to be a quantitative 4NT hand or better with 1543 shape. Maybe you can get to a 4-3 6C contract or 4-4 6D contract if partner chose to ignore the fit the round before.

 

3+4, If we had agreed gerber, I would play them in those auctions. I would say though, that in strong partnerships 3C in sequence 3 is becoming very rare, but that's for another topic.

[helene_t]

Mike Lawrence plays gerber in many situations and when 4c has to be something else he sometimes plays 4nt as quanti and 5c as gerber. Inquiry from this forum also likes gerber.

 

So while 4c in most situations is better used as natural, autosplinter, cog or control, it is not necessarily bad to play it as gerber in some situations. However, it becomes very complicated to determine when it applies so if you want to keep things simple it is better never to play gerber. This argument is relevant for everybody but especially for beginners, of course.

[Lovera]

Gerber is used on balanced hands (opening bid 1NT or 2NT ..4♣ either by partner or opener) and over 2♣-2x followed by 2NT whilest 4NT when you are agree trump suit in the other cases. So it allows you to use cue bid and identify easly that 4♣ is a cue (showing A of club). With the occasion i want suggest to find and see also the 4♣ by Walter Avarelli (that i used instead Gerber) that allow you (expecially for first answere indicating 0/1 Ace) to stay low in bidding.

[m1cha]

1. 4C looks like the bid with AKxxx xx AKxx Ax. The problem with having 4C as gerber here is what do you do if partner shows say no aces and 2 kings? Partner could easily have Qx Kxxxxx QJ KQJ or something where slam is hopeless* or xx KQJTxx Qx KJx where slam is almost cold.

*Actually 6S/NT has play, but you still wouldn't want to be in it.

Partner has shown 12 - 15 points, I have 19 including a pretty fragile length point, no good fit. How do we evaluate the chances of a slam? Sure I may appreciate 4♣ for cue bidding, but will it solve my problem?

The main two differences between your two hands are the overlap in ♣ and the ♥Q. Will I find that out? Traditionally I can bid 4NT to ask partner about the precise range but is this likely to solve the problem? Bridge is a matter of probabilities. I prefer to ask for aces and raise to slam based on the presence of the ace. Why? Because if the ace is missing I'm sure to concede a ♥ trick and I think I'm more than 50 % likely to concede another trick anywhere else with our few points. But when the ace is with partner, the suit will almost certainly hold. It will hardly ever be lead and if it is, partner is likely to have a double stop, so I can afford to concede a trick in another suit. And if I think I'm more than 50 % likely to concede two tricks in other suits, I shouldn't think of slam at all. In addition, that approach prevents bidding slam if partner holds ♥QJTxxx.

 

2. 4C here is traditionally natural and tends to be a quantitative 4NT hand or better with 1543 shape. Maybe you can get to a 4-3 6C contract or 4-4 6D contract if partner chose to ignore the fit the round before.

Yes, that's how GIB plays it iirc. And yes, playing IMPs I do prefer 6♣ 5-3 or 6♦ 4-4 to 6NT if I have that fit and a distributional hand. That's okay but I feel I don't necessarily have to bid 4♣ for that. How about playing natural over 4NT? So if partner is interested in slam and has an unbid suit, they bid 5♣ or 5♦ and we find the fit and slam in a minor.

 

@helene_t:

Right, the rules must be clear and preferably simple. Actually that's why I want to play Gerber. Otherwise I'd be fine playing 4NT to ask for aces even for a NT contract whenever it doesn't make sense to play quantitative 4NT. But unfortunately there's no general agreement possible about what "makes sense" and what doesn't ;) . Whereas it is pretty simple to strictly define a set of situations for Gerber 4♣. While on the other hand again, there is obviously no agreement on the question if this set "makes sense" ;) .

 

By the way, I never played 5♣ Gerber so far. But I used to play 4♦ as Gerber in a few selected situations (where 4♣ was defined differently).