Gerber or not

[serpentino]

What do 4♣ means in this sequence Playing 2/1

 

North South

1♠ 2♦

2NT 3NT

4♣

 

I intended as Gerber since NT was Agreed

 

Thanks

 

Here is North south Hands

 

North

♠ AKQxx

♥ K109

♦ J10x

♣ KJ

 

South

 

♠ x

♥ Qxx

♦ AK9xxx

♣ Axx

 

Maybee should bid 3♦ instead of 2NT

[silvr bull]

to eliminate confusion about Gerber, I ask my partners to agree to a simple rule: 4C is Gerber if, and only if, it is a jump over 1NT or a balanced 2NT. With that rule, 4C here would be a mild slam try with something like AQxxx AQ Kx KQxx, and you would plan to pass if partner rejects by bidding 4NT. In this auction, you have heard that S's hand is good enough for game and that his best suit is Ds and that he is content to play in 3NT. If that limited information is enough to push you to ask for aces, then you may have had a better bid than 2NT. To ask for aces after S bids 3NT, bid 4NT as a quantitative raise. S can pass with a minimum, or answer aces (5C= 0 or 4) if he is willing to bid more.

[FelicityR]

to eliminate confusion about Gerber, I ask my partners to agree to a simple rule: 4C is Gerber if, and only if, it is a jump over 1NT or a balanced 2NT.

 

Absolutely right. Gerber is/was specifically only used as a jump bid over a NT opening, But fewer and fewer players use Gerber these days preferring 4♣ as a transfer to 4♥.

 

As for what 4♣ means in the bidding sequence illustrated playing 2/1, I personally really haven't any idea - sorry. (Maybe it is covered in detail in a comprehensive 2/1 bidding book - Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence, etc.) If opener had a second suit - ♣s - and a good hand surely he should have bid it over 2♦ instead of 2NT

[1eyedjack]

I find it quite hard (so much so that I have yet to succeed) to construct a hand consistent with the 2N rebid that can unilaterally assess the merits of slam purely on the basis of responder's top controls. It would be rather rare to remove 3NT under any circumstances, but were I to do so I would most likely want to make a quantitative bid. That said, I cannot think of a sensible use for 4C. Maybe use 4C as the quant bid instead of 4N, as it leaves open the opportunity to stop in 4S?

[rhm]

I find it quite hard (so much so that I have yet to succeed) to construct a hand consistent with the 2N rebid that can unilaterally assess the merits of slam purely on the basis of responder's top controls. It would be rather rare to remove 3NT under any circumstances, but were I to do so I would most likely want to make a quantitative bid. That said, I cannot think of a sensible use for 4C. Maybe use 4C as the quant bid instead of 4N, as it leaves open the opportunity to stop in 4S?

Many play a 2NT rebid in 2/1 as a split range either 12-14 or 18-19. Opener will not pass 3NT with the higher range.

This would then show 18-19 HCP with a reasonable 4 card club suit. Something like

 

♠ATxxx ♥AQ ♦Kx ♣AJTx

 

If partner has 4 cards in clubs 6♣ could be a better contract than 6NT

 

Rainer Herrmann

[wank]

More importantly Gerber was a bad bid on your hand. Your partner has shown 12ish plus points. Added to your 17 that makes 29 plus. To make 6nt you should have 33 plus. You perforce have no reason to want to bid slam, no matter how many aces your partner has.

 

It's a common error among intermediate players to employ ace asking methods when they are lacking the points/tricks for slam.

 

You could bid 4nt to ask if your partner has extra points.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

see post above.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[serpentino]

More importantly Gerber was a bad bid on your hand. Your partner has shown 12ish plus points. Added to your 17 that makes 29 plus. To make 6nt you should have 33 plus. You perforce have no reason to want to bid slam, no matter how many aces your partner has.

 

It's a common error among intermediate players to employ ace asking methods when they are lacking the points/tricks for slam.

 

You could bid 4nt to ask if your partner has extra points.

 

 

What about 6 ♦ after is 2 ♦ bid I was thinking more a slam in ♦ plus AKQ ♠ for discards

[P_Marlowe]

What about 6 ♦ after is 2 ♦ bid I was thinking more a slam in ♦ plus AKQ ♠ for discards

#1 If 2D promises 5+, some like to play it that way, than why not raise diamonds?

If 2D could be a 4 carder, nothing upto 3NT told you, that you have a fit in diamonds.

 

#2 Partner could have bid 3D over 2NT, but only if 3D would be forcing.

Without disscussion even in a 2/1 context rebidding the minors is quite often nonforcing.

This is contrary to a 3D bid by opener, which would be forcing.

[barmar]

More importantly Gerber was a bad bid on your hand. Your partner has shown 12ish plus points. Added to your 17 that makes 29 plus. To make 6nt you should have 33 plus. You perforce have no reason to want to bid slam, no matter how many aces your partner has.

That's true for balanced hands. If your spades run or partner has a long running diamond suit, you don't need as much. But there's no way North could know that South has such good diamonds.

You could bid 4nt to ask if your partner has extra points.

Or something else that compensates. With that nice diamond suit, he should accept the slam invitation.

[barmar]

Without disscussion even in a 2/1 context rebidding the minors is quite often nonforcing.

WIthout discussion, the 2/1 bid is absolutely forcing to 3NT or the 4 level. To play "game forcing unless suit rebid", you need to agree on that as an exception.

[Zelandakh]

I think 4♣ here should be a slam try for the minors, something like ♠AQxxx ♥AJx ♦Kx ♣AJx. Gerber and the like make no sense as there is no hand that wants to force to slam based only on aces without a fit. One thing I disagree with the panel on so far is with the constructions showing strong hands with 4 clubs. These would (for me) have rebid 3♣ so I consider them impossible.

 

Over 4♣, my logic would dictate that 4♦ shows a potential diamond fit, 4♥ would be a slam move for clubs and 4♠/4NT/5m are offers to play.

 

More practically, the meaning of a bid like 4♣ here with a pick-up is pretty much "I would like a new partner". If it comes up with a regular partner in practise it is good to define some general rules that can be applied in all auctions. An example rule might be for a 4m call of this nature (ie in a suit that we cannot hold) might be showing slam interest and no convenient call, which probably leads you back to the definition in the first paragraph.

[blackshoe]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that for some, if you must bid Gerber here, the bid is 5♣, not four.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s6hq84dak9642ca64&n=sakq73hkt9djt5ckj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2dp2np3np4c]266|200|

What does 4♣ mean in this sequence Playing 2/1

I intended as Gerber since NT was Agreed

Maybe should bid 3♦ instead of 2NT[/hv]

For opener, a 3♦ rebid is possible

but serpentino's 2N seems better (upgrading the hand to 18-19).

Perhaps responder should rebid 3♦ (if that is forcing).

If you play Gerber then, IMO, opener's 4♣ continuation is unambiguously Gerber.

Whether it's the right bid, here, is debatable.

[Zelandakh]

If you play Gerber then, IMO, opener's 4♣ continuation is unambiguously Gerber.

Whether it's the right bid, here, is debatable.

How about not here then Nigel? I have a challenge for you - construct a North consistent with the bidding that would want to use Gerber after 3NT. Make sure that the hand would not have opened 2NT or rebid 3m. Note also that the bidding system is 2/1 so Responder's 3♦ rebid would indeed have been forcing. This also has an effect on the strength of Opener's 3m rebid of course. Over to you...

[nige1]

How about not here then Nigel? I have a challenge for you - construct a North consistent with the bidding that would want to use Gerber after 3NT. Make sure that the hand would not have opened 2NT or rebid 3m. Note also that the bidding system is 2/1 so Responder's 3♦ rebid would indeed have been forcing. This also has an effect on the strength of Opener's 3m rebid of course. Over to you...

[hv=pc=n&n=sAKQJThKTxdKxcKxx&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2dp2np3np4c]200|200|

I don't know what would be a suitable hand for Gerber.

Perhaps with something like this?

For some 2/1 players, I'm told, responder's 3♦ isn't forcing.

Gerber seems a normal interpretation of 4♣, in this context.

It's hard to come up with another meaning, with your assumptions about 3m i.e.

- You would be reluctant to agree ♦s with 3 card support.

- With a second suit, you would explore for a fit at the 3-level. [/hv]

[Zelandakh]

I don't know what would be a suitable hand for Gerber.

Perhaps with something like this?

This looks like a 2NT opening to me. Surey only Walruses look at it and see 19 highs.

 

 

For some 2/1 players, I'm told, responder's 3♦ isn't forcing.

Then they are not playing 2/1. They may call it that in the same way that those around here playing 5542 openings say they are playing "Standard American". That does not mean I would expect anyone from outside Germany (perhaps just Bavaria) to understand what is meant.

 

 

Gerber seems a normal interpretation of 4♣, in this context.

It's hard to come up with another meaning, with your assumptions about 3m i.e.

- You would be reluctant to agree ♦s with 3 card support.

- With a second suit, you would explore for a fit at the 3-level. [/hv]

I already gave logic that points to another meaning - slam interest and no clear call. I even gave a possible hand and note that that definition would not only handle that hand but also your example. If there is no hand where Gerber is appropriate then defining this as the meaning is also not appropriate. Of course if you play that 4♣ is always Gerber then that is the meaning here regardless of how little sense it makes. But I think BBF discussions can handle a slughtly higher level than that. :P

[JLilly]

This looks like a 2NT opening to me. Surey only Walruses look at it and see 19 highs.

 

 

Sorry, what is a "walrus"?

[JLilly]

Intermediate/beginner here. The following writing style is assertive but I welcome more experienced players smacking me down :)

 

I don't think I've once encountered a hand in which Gerber was used. Perhaps this was in error with some point-rich partners' hands spending too much bidding space looking for the right minor fit, but even in pure-NT auctions with strong 1NT it seems like if it's used unambiguously then it's likely to require fast arrival and may screw up minor-suit slams. The only auction where it seems to make sense is 1♦-(p)-2NT-(p)-4♣.

 

1NT-(p)-3NT is sign-off; 1NT-(p)-2N either is an invitational raise that's too weak to unambiguously bid game opposite a 15-17 (or other strong point range) 1NT opening or is fit-seeking and even if strong ineligible for a subsequent jump to 4♣. 1NT-(p)-4♣ is presumably Gerber, with responder to unilateraly choose whether to end up in 4NT, 5 of a minor, or a slam strain. But this seems the right bid only when responder is holding a long minor that will run opposite a bare doubleton -- a 7-card ♣ or ♦ suit headed by AKQ,-- *not* when responder has invitational points for a 6NT slam (in which case they should bid 4NT), since the particular controls are less important. And in this case, why not use minor transfers and then control bids, or kickback?

 

Why not use 1NT-(p)-4♣ instead for something like "5-5 majors Texas", or possibly "diamonds and a major" Texas? "Texas Stayman"?

 

I suppose a direct jump to 4♣ gives opps less chance to infer your partnership's holdings and/or make lead-directing doubles. But Gerber seems to be a hold-over from before the sophisticated response-to-1NT structure got devised.

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, what is a "walrus"?

Walter the Walrus is a character from Mollo's Menagerie books. One of his defining traits is slavishly following the Milton Work count.

[Vampyr]

Why not use 1NT-(p)-4♣ instead for something like "5-5 majors Texas", or possibly "diamonds and a major" Texas? "Texas Stayman"?

 

I use 4♣ for 5+/5+ majors; not sure I would call it "Texas". I would not be surprised if this were the most popular meaning ...after Gerber.

 

I also play Texas Transfers, which leaves 4♠ available as an ace-asking bid. Never comes up.