[MickyB]

The question is - is the gain in flexibility of which way around to play the contract worth the loss of 4C as Gerber?

I agreet that it is often better to have the unbalanced, undescribed hand as declarer.

[Walddk]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 05:04 PM, said:

His writing was geared towards people who bid NT with no stopper, exposing pards stopper.

Sometimes that can't be helped. What else but 1NT can I open on

xxx
AQx
KJxx
AJx

where I may expose Kx spades in dummy, and what else can I rebid but 1NT on

xxx
AQ
KJxxx
Kxx

after 1♦ - 1♥? Again I may expose the same Kx in dummy.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Here's a real generic statement for you:
It's often more important to rightside the contract in a NT game than a suit game.

Why? Many NT contracts are about the race between declarer and defence to establish their long suit. It thus becomes critical for the defence to be able to attack their suit on the opening lead. If they need to waste a defensive tempo before they can attack, it can cost the contract.

Suit contracts are more about the desire not to lose too many tricks. It is less likely to be critical to attack one particular suit at trick one.

Now, obviously there are loads of exceptions to this, and some NT contracts need to be defended passively, and some suit contracts have quick pitches and so on and so forth. But I think the principle is sound.

Slams are different, when right-siding is usually about stopping 2 quick tricks cashing, and there is no difference between NT and suits. In a partial they often have sufficient high cards that the defence can organise to lead through your vulnerable holding anyway.

sadly with a holding of Ax opposite Qx in NT you don't know who you want to be declarer without seeing the opponents' hands...

[Walddk]

MickyB, on Oct 11 2005, 05:10 PM, said:

The question is - is the gain in flexibility of which way around to play the contract worth the loss of 4C as Gerber? 

You are surely the luckiest man in the world, Mike, if all you have to sacrifice in life is your favourite meaning of 4♣.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: The single most important issue here is making sure that you have a firm agreement with partner. If an auction like 1N - (P) - 4♥ goes "wrong", it can easily cost a match. (I lost an event once because partner and I hadn't discussed this)

Comment 2: Jumps to the 4 level eat up a lot of bidding space. I can't recall the last time that I wanted to jump to the 4 level with something other than a hand that wanted to play 4M. Transfer's at the two level position us nicely to discover whether partner has a minimum or a maximum opening as well as his degree of fit. (To some extent this depends on the sophistication of your "basic" response structure)

Here is a summary of the Scanian response structure

4N = Slam invitational hand with 3=3=4=3 or 3=3=3=4 shape
4♠ = To play
4♥ = To play
4♦ = Transfer to Spades
4♣ = transfer to Hearts

The decision to transfer is based on the presence (or lack) of tenaces. Accordingly, the decision to accept the transfer does not clarify range/degree of fit.

Please note: I doubt that the system designers disagree with Frances point: Getting the lead into the "right" hand isn't nearly as important in suit play as in NT contracts. With this said and done, you have to use the 4♣ and 4♦ openings for something, and it might as well be this...

[barmar]

MickyB, on Oct 11 2005, 11:10 AM, said:

The question is - is the gain in flexibility of which way around to play the contract worth the loss of 4C as Gerber?

How often do you have a 1NT/2NT - 4♣ Gerber auction? If it comes up more than once a year I'd be surprised. I think it's Klinger's book on notrump bidding that makes a strong case that Gerber is one of the most useless conventions -- it's extremely rare that all you need to know when deciding whether to bid a slam is whether you're missing an ace or king.