[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-December-15, 18:37, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2011-December-16, 12:39, said:

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.

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]

jdeegan, on 2011-December-16, 15:47, said:

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]

nigel_k, on 2011-December-13, 13:02, said:

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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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 ) 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.

[Siegmund]

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

A sentiment most recently expressed by mikeh:

Quote

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]

Siegmund, on 2011-December-16, 19:01, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2011-December-16, 16:23, said:

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.

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.

[Mbodell]

jdeegan, on 2011-December-17, 07:19, said:

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.

The problem with that is that you often need to still cue to find out you don't have 2 quick losers in some suit before you RKC. So it is not uncommon you'll have to cue past 4♣ to figure that out and then want to key-card. That said, I play 4♣ as keycard after stayman and after preempts, and in some partnerships play gerber after nt. But in general I'd much rather 4nt was keycard than 4♣. If you want to play kickback and/or minorwood that's fine with me too, but 4♣ as keycard when we are playing a major seems in a non-nt auction seems poor.

[32519]

This thread is from the SAYC and 2/1 Forum. Here other forms of Gerber and meanings of a 4♣ bid were discussed.
Gerber Keycard, MiniMax Gerber, 4♣ Cue, Splinter http://www.bridgebas...-cue-splinters/

[WellSpyder]

I think it may have been referred to on this forum before, but for sheer bravado in using Gerber it is hard to beat the approach set out here: http://www.poorbridge.com/?misc=28

[mycroft]

Siegmund, I bet I've seen two pairs in the last week who play Gerber over suits. I've met pairs - and one or two aren't bad - who play 4♣ Gerber Always.

I play "Gerber never" not because 1NT-4NT is blackwood (obviously), but because most of my pickup and more-than-pickup partners overuse ace-asking bids, and will invent situations - and I don't want to have the "gerber after Stayman" and "gerber after transfer" discussions with a pickup. As I said, the one or two times a year that Gerber/NT is actually useful *and* the other methods don't work, I apologise for being a stick-in-the-mud (and continue to be grateful for all the IMPs I *haven't lost* because partner couldn't bid Gerber when he shouldn't or figured out what my bid *was* because it can't be Gerber (and maybe even those I haven't lost because partner bid 4♣ meaning something intelligent, where with other partners he wouldn't be able to)).

If that makes me sound like a) a novice or b) an arrogant prick who thinks my partners have no bridge judgement, oh well.

And WellSpyder: I've told the story at least once before of coming to a table where the auction went:

(3♠)-4♣-4♥; pass.

Meant as, and taken as, Gerber; the opponents were surprised at overcaller's 4 hearts and 2 clubs, and wondered if they were due an Alert or two (which, of course, they were). What gets me is that they got to the best contract...

[32519]

Some more interesting threads dealing with Gerber -

1.) What is the meaning of 4♣? http://www.bridgebas.../38337-this-4c/ Emphasising again the importance of partnership agreements. There were 69 replies.
2.) To Gerber or not to Gerber? http://www.bridgebas...-not-to-gerber/ Another Gerber misunderstanding. There were 44 replies.
3.) The Beginner and Intermediate Forum also had some advice on Gerber http://www.bridgebas...ic/5286-gerber/

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-December-19, 11:06, said:

I play "Gerber never" not because 1NT-4NT is blackwood (obviously)

If you want an ace-asking bid after NT openings, you may have 4♠ available if you play 4-level transfers.