[1eyedjack]

Hannie, on Jul 20 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

Another situation where I like to use Gerber:

preemt-4C: Gerber (once again 1430 RKC).

The only exceptions are over 3C and 4C, where we use 4D as "Gerber".

Once again, I do not understand why I should use the rules you suggest. It seems to me that if you make clear agreements about when you use Gerber, it can be a useful tool.

It can be a useful tool on those hands where the response to Gerber will tell you where you where you want the final contract, where there is no more useful use for the 4C bid, and where there is other way to bid the hand. On the other hand it can be a pain in the neck on the rather more frequent occasions in which 4C is more useful for some other treatment, whilst hands where there is no alternative to Gerber, and in which the response to Gerber is the only critical information, are rare.

In particular you cite the use of 4C over a preempt. The reason that preempts are effective is that they deny you bidding space, particularly for the investigation of trump fits. Whether you use 4C as natural, some sort of non-leaping Michaels or as an artificial fit-finding enquiry, any of these options would be more useful on grounds of frequency in defence to a preempt than its use as Gerber.

[han]

1eyedjack, perhaps my post was not clear. I meant of course 4C as Gerber over PARTNER's preempt, not over THEIR preempt!

[1eyedjack]

Hannie, on Jul 20 2005, 05:59 PM, said:

1eyedjack, perhaps my post was not clear. I meant of course 4C as Gerber over PARTNER's preempt, not over THEIR preempt!

Oh, LOL

Yes the post makes more sense now. I quite often use 4m as "RKCB" where a minor is agreed, because some of the responses to 4N RKCB take you beyond 5m when slam is not assured. Never really thought of it as Gerber. Now you have left me with a bad taste in the mouth :-(

[Walddk]

luis, on Jul 20 2005, 11:58 PM, said:

My best recomendation is to never learn gerber and if you know it please forget it. I saw in a movie we'll be able to erase memories from the brain in the future, when such a technology arrives I will erase gerber first.

Luis

Amen.

[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

The following auction appeared in a team game on BBO this morning (West dealer):

1♥ - 1♠
1N - 4N
pass

An obvious quantitative 4NT you would all claim. Sure, but evidently East will not agree with you.

The good news for the defence: With perfect timing they can cash the first 10 tricks.

The bad news for the defence: North had a natural club lead, and moments later declarer wrapped up 12 tricks.

Did anyone say that bridge is a fair game? One thing is certain: Next time East will bid 4NT again. Sigh.

Roland

[coyot]

vbcastor, on Jul 20 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

Given some of the examples that have been posted here, I see that 4n is quantative in a lot more instances than I thought. Now my question is what do i have to have to make a 4nt quantative bid and what do I have to have to accept an invite.
In the case of 1♣, 1♦, 1nt, 4nt...what do i need to have to make the 4nt call and what does the 1nt bidder have to have to take the invite.

I'm not one who likes to open 1st or 2nd seat with 11 but have seen a lot who do. the opener does not have 15 or would have opened 1n I would assume. So with 13 or 14, do you accept or do you have to have 14?

My perception of 4NT quantitatives is: If you have the upper half of your point range and a good shape (not 4-3-3-3), answer positively. A good idea is to actually RESPOND to blackwood - because you will be able to bid 6NT with good 32 HCP hands (i.e. with minor 5card) with the safety of avoiding those contracts without 2 aces .

If your range is 12-14, you'd generally answer with any 14 and good 13 (any 5332, 4432 with a few extra 10's or working values (i.e. not QJ doubleton...)

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 21 2005, 01:52 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ 85 ♥ 65 ♦ Q764 ♣ A10754 ♠ K7 ♥ KJ732 ♦ J85 ♣ K96 ♠ AQJ632 ♥ AQ984 ♦ K ♣ 2 ♠ 1094 ♥ 10 ♦ A10932 ♣ QJ83

The following auction appeared in a team game on BBO this morning (West dealer):

1♥ - 1♠
1N - 4N
pass

An obvious quantitative 4NT you would all claim. Sure, but evidently East will not agree with you.

The good news for the defence: With perfect timing they can cash the first 10 tricks.

The bad news for the defence: North had a natural club lead, and moments later declarer wrapped up 12 tricks.

Did anyone say that bridge is a fair game? One thing is certain: Next time East will bid 4NT again. Sigh.

Roland

Wow what a great hand to post for so many many reasons...where can we begin?

[ochinko]

MickyB, on Jul 20 2005, 06:45 PM, said:

I don't know whether Stayman then 4♣ should be a splinter or a cue, but it isn't Gerber!

How do you know that?

What's wrong with asking for aces after you asked for a 4 card major?

If you don't use Gerber, or don't want to be able to ask about aces after Stayman, that's fine, but you certainly can't use Blackwood there, since it's much more expected to be invitational.

Anyway, here is what it says in "Learning to Play Bridge 2":
If the responder rebids 4C after using Stayman that bid is always Gerber.

And it doesn't need an exclamation mark at the end in order to sound more affirmative.

Petko

[helene_t]

As for Roland's example: If you have no agreements about check-back-relay it makes some sense to use 4NT as Blackwood here, since you have no way of setting trumps. Actually, I have used 4NT as Blackwood once in the same auction, playing with a beginner. (This is bad, of course, since next week I will use the same 4NT bid as quanti).

Without better agreement, East should jump to 6♥. Maybe even immediately without mentioning the spades suit. On a good day you may make it with two aces off thanks to the non-informative auction. But of course, if you play strong jump shifts, East can also start with 2♠. I don't know if this East hand satisfies the criteria for a SJS (I've never played strong jump shifts myself) but it's certainly better than this Blackwood disaster.

A lot of beginners use Blackwood because there are so many other bids which are either non-forcing or may be seen as non-forcing by partner. Under those circumstances, I can understand that many prefer Gerber. We had a discussion about slam conventions at a bridge teacher's meeting. The instructor said that Blackwood is better than Gerber because it is so obviously flawed (partner responds 5♥ and now you are two aces off for 6♦. You try to sign off in 5NT but partner thinks it's king-asking) that it is less prone to abuse than Gerber.

Well, then let's teach them the Fibonacci carding suggested by Free so that they will not be tempted to over-signal. Those kind of arguments are disrespectfull to the students, IMHO.

Beginners should learn constructive bidding first, slam bidding later. New Minor Forcing (or whatever) should be taught several weeks before whatever slam conventions you choose. Without any discussion of slam conventions (immagine you'd never heard about ace-asking and cue-bidding) it's obvious that 4NT is quantitative.

[coyot]

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand :-(. If he keeps his mouth shut, the auction will proceed 1♠-1NT(F)-3♥- and then probably 4♣-4♦-4♠-5♥...

[bearmum]

[FrancesHinden]

coyot, on Jul 21 2005, 04:50 AM, said:

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

[bearmum]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 21 2005, 10:58 PM, said:

coyot, on Jul 21 2005, 04:50 AM, said:

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

LOTS of folk open light -- BUT I wouldn't have opened this one (lol)

BUT fact that W did open is one that East has to respond to -- and I still believe that E made the mistake in mentioning ♠s BEFORE supporting ♥s (by whatever their system allowed )

[ochinko]

bearmum, on Jul 21 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 21 2005, 10:58 PM, said:

coyot, on Jul 21 2005, 04:50 AM, said:

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand...

I was just thinking that.

LOTS of folk open light -- BUT I wouldn't have opened this one (lol)

Zar points bidders are notorious for their light openings, but even they won't open with that hand.

Petko

[Gerben42]

Whoa this thread is moving fast...

@Hannie:

Quote

Gerben, I like to play the following with my regular partners, I wonder if you can explain to me why this is so bad:

1NT-2D-2H-4C: Gerber (1430 RKC of course)
1NT-2H-2S-4C: Gerber (same)
1NT-2C-2H/S - 4C: Gerber (again 1430 in the bid major)

I don't have anything against anyone agreeing that in sequence X 4♣ is RKC for some suit, but call it something else please. And as long as the sequences are well defined and you won't mess it up, go ahead.

What I am raging about is the ace asking without a fit bid 4♣ that is used in some situations, and some players use it in many situations where they shouldn't, or even when ♣ have been bid (uh oh...)

With one partner I used 4♣ after a 3♥/♠-opening not as natural or cue but as asking for Key Cards on a specific scale (other than our usual 1430 becauseee 4 and 3 are sort of impossible

Also 3minor - 4 in other minor as asking for Key Cards is one of those situations. This can be found in Preempts from A to Z and I'm not going to criticize any of the methods that are in there because it's really great!

But these are
* Specific agreed situations
* Trump suit agreed

Inquiry gives this hand for the auction 1♠ - 4NT:

---

Is 2344 the only possible distribution, if so it never comes up, if not are you willing to give up on a minor suit slam by bidding 4NT. This hand does not just want to find out slam or not, but also which slam. If partner has a small singleton in ♥ 4NT may be very bad with 6m cold, take for example this normal minimum hand:

---

I know this is 1♠ for you (playing standard I think one should with this hand) and a minimum so pass 4NT. Or bid 5♥ for 2 aces? Or just 6♣ before partner bids 6NT? The problem with quantitative in this situation is that you have no idea what kind of hand partner has, unlike when he has made a balanced rebid.

Quote

Not to mention that the whole problem was created by West opening 11HCP aceless 5332 hand :-(. If he keeps his mouth shut, the auction will proceed 1♠-1NT(F)-3♥- and then probably 4♣-4♦-4♠-5♥...

I would not criticize West for opening. Playing standard I wouldn't, with several partners it would be an obvious bid. East, however, lost his mind. Note btw that East has a reasonable hand for a direct RKC 4NT after 1♥ (rather have ♥K instead of the Q to make the 5-level 100% safe but nothing's perfect)

What you do not want to hear is the auction: 1♥ (pass) 2NT (3♦) something (5♦). Now I've shown my forcing raise but am not going to find out anything.

[coyot]

I would agree with the 1♠ bid - under the condition that you play something like Checkback Stayman in order to establish gameforce.

What are the possible auctions after 1♥-1♠?

1NT - with 2♦ GF, you can then support hearts and use RKCB, absolutely no problem in bidding

2m - gives you 4th suit to use as GF (and learn whether p has wasted values against your singleton or not - by his NT or other bid on FSF)

2H - 4NT RKCB, easy

2S - 4NT RKCB, even better, spade king will be a crucial card

(Any other bids are stronger, so 7NT is cold )

[vbcastor]

On the hand that Roland presented, is that how most of you would bid it?

[Gerben42]

With fear for minor suit preempting I'd take the risk that partner may have 0 KC.

So 1♥ - 4NT - 5♣ 1/4 - 5♥ - pass

[EricK]

On Roland's hand, the easiest way to find the ♠K (which is an important card for a grand slam) is to start with 2♠.

Eric

[kgr]

EricK, on Jul 22 2005, 07:39 AM, said:

On Roland's hand, the easiest way to find the ♠K (which is an important card for a grand slam) is to start with 2♠.

Eric

I play that:
1♥-1♠
1NT-3♥
Shows ♥-fit, a good 5-card ♠ suit and interested in slam. Asks to start cueing.
If partner cues ♠ then I know he has the K and I bid 4NT RKC.
... not sure how standard this is, but I suppose that everybody would play 3♥ forcing here?