[32519]

The Advanced-Expert Forum discussed RKC for minors in a different thread. You can find it here http://www.bridgebas...rkc-for-minors/

[kenberg]

Antrax, on 2011-December-14, 04:18, said:

So, kudos to the OP, but I'm afraid I still don't see the objective case against Gerber. Is there some hand where the 4♣ cue bid (in an NT auction) or natural bid is sorely missed?

Addressing the "natural" part of your question: 2NT-3♣-3♠-5♣ probably should show four hearts and five plus clubs unless there has been discussion to the contrary.

To make life simple, I usually push the agreement that for 4♣ to be Gerber there must be a jump to 4♣ and it must be a "NT auction". One can pin down this last phrase reasonably well. If we wanted to refine this, probably there could be specific auctions where these rules need adjustment. But I find the rules as stated plenty adequate.

All this talk about the misuse of Gerber brought to mind something during my teen years. For reasons that as an adult I cannot imagine I was hurtling down an unknown hill in darkness on a toboggan. This led to spending several weeks on crutches. I did not hold the toboggan responsible.

[Vampyr]

Antrax, on 2011-December-14, 04:18, said:

So, kudos to the OP, but I'm afraid I still don't see the objective case against Gerber. Is there some hand where the 4♣ cue bid (in an NT auction) or natural bid is sorely missed?

I'm just not sure what the point of the thread is. The OP doesn't like Gerber, but no one is, as far as I know, forcing him to play it. I find it hard to come up with any reaction besides "so what?".

[S2000magic]

kenberg, on 2011-December-14, 09:29, said:

I did not hold the toboggan responsible.

But you know that there are some people (especially in the United States) who would have sued the toboggan manufacturer (as well as the land owner, etc.) without hesitation.

Alas.

[xxhong]

I only play gerber as a jump after NT bids. Still, I almost never used it. Anyway, it's difficult to assign some other meanings here.

Perhaps in some sequences it can be a RKC in clubs. For example:
1C 2N
4C

or
1N 4C

This usually simplifies the bidding sequence and make opps unable to double your transfer bids.

32519, on 2011-December-13, 07:02, said:

The Gerber Convention was created by the late John Gerber in 1938. It has since been superseded by Minorwood, Redwood and RKCB. One could make an argument to include Gerber being superseded by cue-bidding as well (encompassing Serious 3NT, Non-serious 3NT and Last Train to Clarksville [LTTC]). Yet there are players still playing the Gerber convention.

We have a small club in the town where I live. Two of the women players here still play their version of Gerber. They swear by it and simply aren’t interested in switching to anything more modern. Both are in fact competent players, though certainly not world-class by any stretch of the imagination.

I have kibitzed many BBO Live Broadcasts where the commentators often make reference to how obsolete the Gerber convention is. For the benefit of newcomers to bridge (and the two women from my hometown) let us tackle Gerber OBJECTIVELY. Let us start unravelling this topic in as much depth as possible –
1.) Giving clear concise explanations as to why Gerber is so outdated.
Then we go on to the following –
2.) Providing better methods to ask for aces and keycards.
3.) Providing a whole list of better uses for the 4♣ bid.

Hopefully the end result of this thread will raise the standard of play amongst bridge newbie’s. I certainly intend passing the info on to the two women in our club.

I know that this is a much hated convention, but please respond objectively.

Thanking you all in advance.

[Zelandakh]

xxhong, on 2011-December-14, 11:15, said:

I only play gerber as a jump after NT bids. Still, I almost never used it. Anyway, it's difficult to assign some other meanings here.

Really?! 1NT - 4C = both majors...2NT - 4C = diamonds or 2NT - 4C = majors amongst several other options. Even 2-under transfers are more useful than Gerber here imho. Whether 4C is more useful as Minorwood or as a slam try (or better) when clubs is agreed is an open question - both methods have their plusses. When another suit is agreed then a jump to 4C can usually be a splinter, again more useful than Gerber imho.

[32519]

The Advanced and Expert Bridge Forum had another thread discussing “Problems with RKC for minors.” The thread was started by kgr back in April 2010. It can be found here http://www.bridgebas...rkc-for-minors/
Kgr’s thread received 30 replies for anyone wanting to read them.

We are making steady progress towards locking down the Gerber / Minorwood discussion. The goal is still to provide a thread with as much info as possible for all to make better decisions regarding their use (especially for newcomers to bridge). If you have anything to add to the discussion don’t give up just yet.

[Antrax]

32519, I do applaud the initiative, but could you maybe summarize in a sentence what the argument is? "Gerber is a bad convention because it's..." confusing? redundant? not worth the lack of space?

[gordontd]

"Gerber is a bad convention, like many others, when it's used in inappropriate situations".

I don't think it should be put much more strongly than that.

[paulg]

I see ten times the number of key-card and minorwood misunderstandings watching the 'experts' on BBO Vugraph, and international players practising, than I see Gerber misunderstandings at the club. It has its place.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2011-December-15, 01:56, said:

Really?! 1NT - 4C = both majors...2NT - 4C = diamonds or 2NT - 4C = majors amongst several other options. Even 2-under transfers are more useful than Gerber here imho.

I'm not sure about this last bit -- 1-under transfers are just about as useful as 2-under transfers.

[S2000magic]

gordontd, on 2011-December-15, 03:23, said:

"Gerber is a bad convention, like many others, when it's used in inappropriate situations".

Is there a convention whose name couldn't be substituted for "Gerber" in that sentence without making it false? I cannot think of one.

[mycroft]

Basically, Blackwood is bad because, unlike its original intent of "keeping us out of bad slams", it is used by some - usually the weaker players (note, not newer) - as "only way to get to slam". One can tell these pairs, because they confidently bid 4NT, then after the "N-1" answer, agonise and bid 5, and make 6. Of course, they also bid 6 and make 4 because they have all the aces and not enough tricks, or all the aces but one and, well, they don't have the K either.

We all know this, but I'm stating it for argument.

Some weaker players know this, but instead of realising that they actually need different slam tools, hit on Gerber as a way to get out in 4 instead of 5, where hopefully if they don't have enough aces, they can get away with lead to the A, back to the K, ruff. *This*, added to the fact that there are almost always better uses for 4♣ than Gerber, is why there is so much hate for the G word.

Not that Gerber, when not used correctly, is bad - as people are saying, that's common to every convention - but that it is so often not used correctly, *and* it is so rarely (compared to the alternatives) the correct tool, that at best it's a waste of a call, and at worst, so much worse.

For these people (and their non-regular partners, like me), playing "No Gerber Ever" (and, frankly, "No Blackwood Ever") will get better results. It won't get them to slams, because they *still* won't learn other slam tools, but it will help their game. Won't happen, though.

I have suggested to some pairs stuck in this rut that for the next two months, they are not allowed to bid Blackwood/Gerber and not go to slam if they are off only one Ace/Keycard. "yes, you will get to noplay slams; but not as many as you're worried about. And you will look at the ones where it is noplay, and say 'what makes it noplay', and 'how do we avoid these?'" Come back after the two months, and we'll talk about those questions. It sometimes works :-)

My mind is such that (even as a systems wonk and with a memory for conventions and being able to work stuff out in context if I forget) I can understand exactly two G rules:

• No Gerber Ever, and
  
• Gerber Directly after NT openings, responses and rebids; (with whatever discussion we've had about "and after transfers and Stayman")

Anything else and my response will be "I'm sorry, I'll never be able to remember that." Like other things I won't play, I'm not all that interested in training to be able to, either - but I don't say that.

[S2000magic]

mycroft, on 2011-December-15, 11:36, said:

For these people (and their non-regular partners, like me), playing "No Gerber Ever" (and, frankly, "No Blackwood Ever") will get better results. It won't get them to slams, because they *still* won't learn other slam tools, but it will help their game. Won't happen, though.

In Five Weeks to Winning Bridge, Alfred Sheinwold suggests that, if you believe that you're overusing Blackwood (the same would apply to Gerber), that you decide to stop using it at all for a while, and use other tools (e.g., cuebidding), to decide when to bid a slam. When you return to Blackwood, you'll have a better understanding where it fits in the slam bidding toolbox.

The rub - as you point out - is the "if you believe . . ." part.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-15, 07:32, said:

I'm not sure about this last bit -- 1-under transfers are just about as useful as 2-under transfers.

At the four level? The advantage that South African Texas gives responder, to decide to protect his own tenaces rather than the ones his partner might have, seems considerable to me.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-15, 12:08, said:

At the four level? The advantage that South African Texas gives responder, to decide to protect his own tenaces rather than the ones his partner might have, seems considerable to me.

I did say "just about" -- after all, the one-suited hand is not that likely to have tenaces. I don't know whether you actually play SAT, but do you or anyone else who plays it or doesn't play it find that responder often has tenaces to protect? And that such a suit is often the normal opening lead?

Anyway, the extra step is a sacrifice I am willing to make to play 4♣ as pick-a-major. I find that this comes up a bit more frequently than Texas xfer hands. I don't know if it is different for strong NTers.

[blackshoe]

I don't either. I've played both, but not enough to gather any useful data on this.

[gnasher]

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.

If you're just using them as a way to sign off in game, the only significant benefit is that you're less likely to play in a transfer - 1NT-4♦ is much less likely to be passed than 1NT-4♥.

[Mbodell]

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.

If you're just using them as a way to sign off in game, the only significant benefit is that you're less likely to play in a transfer - 1NT-4♦ is much less likely to be passed than 1NT-4♥.

I think if you play weak nt the ability to decide who declares is a pretty reasonable advantage. Both hands are about equally strong, but one might be better to lead through then the other.

[32519]

The SAYC and 2/1 Discussion Forum had a thread titled: "Name the worst convention." The thread received 6 pages of responses. Gerber was mentioned quite a few times. Flannery was also mentioned. You can read it here http://www.bridgebas...on/page__st__60