[mycroft]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-01, 13:55, said:

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

Ah yes, but it works better if you have a 4H response that shows a desire to play in 4H, as well.

But at least in my world, it means that you can't bid Gerber. Which is also a plus. But it confuses almost all my opponents.

[ArtK78]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-01, 13:55, said:

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

If you play transfers the 4♠ call is an idle bid. Whenever this is true, it makes sense to use both 4♠ and 4NT as natural invites to 6NT. But there can be other uses for the call. I just don't believe they make as much sense.

[mikestar13]

Actually in a weak NT framework South African Texas is not bad:

4♣/4♦=I want you to play 4♥/4♠.

4♥/4♠= I want to play 4♥/4♠.

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

[EricK]

 mikestar13, on 2014-July-01, 16:48, said:

Actually in a weak NT framework South African Texas is not bad:

4♣/4♦=I want you to play 4♥/4♠.

4♥/4♠= I want to play 4♥/4♠.

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

Indeed, that's another common agreement round here - 4♣ is always Gerber.

[cherdano]

I have played in a club where two thirds of the field (all LOL or GOGs) were playing a weird strong diamond opening system.

I am actually fairly cynical about it - if the local pro teaches highly nonstandard methods, then his disciples are so much more dependent on his advice, rather than getting it from competing pros, from books or (gasp!) from the internet. And his authority is less likely to get challenged by "But Versace bid 2♦ in that situation!"

[PeterAlan]

 ArtK78, on 2014-July-01, 16:27, said:

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-01, 13:55, said:

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

If you play transfers the 4♠ call is an idle bid. Whenever this is true, it makes sense to use both 4♠ and 4NT as natural invites to 6NT. But there can be other uses for the call. I just don't believe they make as much sense.

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

[akwoo]

 PeterAlan, on 2014-July-01, 18:22, said:

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

The problem is that responder has to be a good enough bridge player to be able to look at his or her hand and predict with some reasonable accuracy who should be playing it. The players that are the subject of this thread probably wouldn't do better than flipping a coin.

Also, some partnerships will end up using this kind of convention to have the stronger player play the hand. This is legally dubious in most jurisdictions.

This is one of the reasons that 'stolen bid' doubles with systems on after interference of NT is stubbornly popular. Sure the alternatives of takeout or penalty double are both theoretically better, but they require players who are capable of using them correctly. This is particularly tricky for penalty doubles since vulnerability has to be taken into account, and intermediate spot cards in opponents suit are a subtle but important factor.

[ArtK78]

 PeterAlan, on 2014-July-01, 18:22, said:

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

You are making several assumptions. You do not know my methods. I merely stated that IF you play transfers, then 4♠ is an idle bid and might as well be used for something. I also stated that in those auctions where 4♠ is an idle bid, I use it for a weaker quantitative invitation to 6NT, and then 4NT becomes a stronger quantitative invitation to 6NT. This sometimes comes in very handy, and not just in deciding whether to accept or decline the invitation.

I understand all about the positional value of the declarership. However, at least on the opening lead, even playing a weak NT, it is likely to be better for the declaring side to have the unbalanced hand as the dummy and the balanced hand as declarer. After the opening lead, that changes, since the defense now knows where their tricks are likely to come from if the unbalanced hand is the dummy. So the value of having the "stronger" hand as declarer when a long major suit faces a weak NT opening is a sometimes thing.

Having said that, when I play a mini-NT (10-12), my methods are geared to having responder declare game and slam contracts, as the responder has to be the stronger hand. Not so much playing a weak NT (11-14), as the two hands are likely to be about equal in strength.

By the way, in the hands of someone who can follow suit, Gerber is not a bad convention. I realize that even uttering the "G" word on these Fora is blasphemy, but the derision cast at Gerber on these Fora is really laughable.

[whereagles]

1NT-4♠ is not idle. I use it as a hand hogging device

[whereagles]

 mikestar13, on 2014-July-01, 16:48, said:

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

G is teh tool of teh devil!

[EricK]

 ArtK78, on 2014-July-01, 19:27, said:

By the way, in the hands of someone who can follow suit, Gerber is not a bad convention. I realize that even uttering the "G" word on these Fora is blasphemy, but the derision cast at Gerber on these Fora is really laughable.

If a player is going to misuse a slam convention, then it is probably better that they misuse 4♣ and end up in 4M, rather than misuse 4NT and end up in 5M. But then they're probably better off using 1♣ as a control asking bid (as I believe some rather good Italian players used to do as part of their system).

[Vampyr]

 mikestar13, on 2014-July-01, 16:48, said:

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

You can always just play 4♣=pick a major.

[mycroft]

The problem isn't Gerber (but my story about it is my story, and I'm sticking to it), but that weaker players (even weaker players with 2000 MPs) overuse ace-asking calls in general, and Gerber in particular, over other slam tools. You can always tell when that happens because it goes 1NT-4♣; 4whatever-uhhh...

The other problem with Gerber (in a strong NT, transfer and Stayman world) is the "Stayman/Transfer/how do you ace-ask or quant with 5332s" question. Not that there aren't answers - absolutely there are answers - it's just that people answer them differently and never discuss it, and the partnerships that do, usually still have one case they can't show.

So, I go with "I'll give up Gerber; that means that I can use it for something that comes up more often, it stops partner (if she's one of those who ace-ask, then think) from that standard failure, and it stops us from having a disagreement about the very common keycard/gerber/quant/splinter arguments on the second round".

A great call; just as FORTRAN is (still) a great language. Very limited use, but nothing beats it when it shines. Unfortunately, it gets used a lot when it doesn't shine.

Oh, and my story? If you haven't heard it before, here it is:

Spoiler

Three years in a very regular partnership, likely about 15000 hands. In that entire time, Gerber came up 3 times:

• First time, I answered at the 4 level, with the blackwood response. Oops.
  
• Second time, I answered with the Gerber response...at the 5 level. Oops.
  
• Third time, we were playing "Gerber after Stayman only", and it went 1NT-4♣, and partner showed his ace.

So, I've moved to "Gerber is baby food"; from experience, with me at least, it's +EV; just like refusing to use a bandsaw is +EV for me.

[beatrix45]

 EricK, on 2014-June-29, 07:22, said:

I occasionally play in a club. Most of the people there are weak players. Because this is England, they mostly play Acol of some variety - but some of the common agreements are dubious at best.

For example, it is fairly common to play, in response to a Weak NT (12-14), that 2♠ shows exactly 11 points and 2NT shows exactly 12. This, I hope you'll agree, seems a ridiculous way to use two bids. Now it is not too surprising that weak players have bad agreements, but where exactly do they get them from? I have never seen the aforementioned use of 2♠ and 2NT recommended in any book, or any website purporting to teach Acol. So anybody looking to any outside source for a system opposite 1NT would find something different (and better). So how can something like this take hold?

Is there anything similar happening where you play?

Your weirdness example actually uncovers another entire level of dumbness. If playing transfers over a 1NT opener, 2♠ is an idle bid, so using it to refine game tries is not totally insane. However, any form of transfers over any form of weak or Kamikaze opening 1 NT has always been considered unsound at matchpoints, and very dubious at IMP's or total points. Weak players get these ideas from other weak players. The blind lead the blind. In olden times this route of an overestimation of one's abilities led inexorably to a seat in a ten or twenty cent rubber bridge game and a rude awakening. No more. Let them sleep. It's just a game.

Except, of course, at my Thursday afternoon soiree at 20 cents (Canadian) per point. This time of year is lovely in the mountains. The game often lasts well into the night, but we have plenty of extra bedrooms and also the old bunkhouse if you bring your family. We have great hiking, horseback riding and some really good fishing. If you are in the neighborhood, please feel welcome to stop by.

[Zelandakh]

 beatrix45, on 2014-July-06, 05:58, said:

However, any form of transfers over any form of weak or Kamikaze opening 1 NT has always been considered unsound at matchpoints, and very dubious at IMP's or total points. Weak players get these ideas from other weak players. The blind lead the blind. In olden times this route of an overestimation of one's abilities led inexorably to a seat in a ten or twenty cent rubber bridge game and a rude awakening. No more. Let them sleep. It's just a game.

It is good to know that you consider Fantoni and Nunes, amongst others, weak players. It is sad that they overestimate their abilities and even go to national trials and other major events. I strongly suggest you point this out to them at your next Bermuda Bowl.

[FrancesHinden]

 beatrix45, on 2014-July-06, 05:58, said:

This time of year is lovely in the mountains. The game often lasts well into the night, but we have plenty of extra bedrooms and also the old bunkhouse if you bring your family. We have great hiking, horseback riding and some really good fishing. If you are in the neighborhood, please feel welcome to stop by.

Google can't find Kalamute, BC (it keeps directing me to Malamute, Yukon). Google isn't the best map in the world, where are you? We spent our honeymoon mainly in BC with a bit of Alberta, beautiful country.

[Vampyr]

 beatrix45, on 2014-July-06, 05:58, said:

Your weirdness example actually uncovers another entire level of dumbness. If playing transfers over a 1NT opener, 2♠ is an idle bid, so using it to refine game tries is not totally insane.

There are so many uses for 2♠. A good one, if you are using jumps to 3m as single-suited slam tries (or invitational) you can play 2♠ as a weak single -suited or slam try 2-suited minor hand, and can add in single suit slam tries if your jump to 3m is invitational. Baron, minor-suit Stayman, 2-suited major hands of some description, or major/minor, some sort of 4441... I'm sure others could come up with much longer lists of possible uses for this 'idle' bid.

Here in the land of the weak NT, virtually everyone uses transfers, and they work quite well.

[JonnyQuest]

"Where do bad players get their ideas from?"

My money is on Kalamute.

[helene_t]

 JonnyQuest, on 2014-July-06, 11:57, said:

"Where do bad players get their ideas from?"

My money is on Kalamute.

That's a bit unfair

[ArtK78]

Personally, I agree that transfers over weak NTs are not that great an idea, but there are many players who disagree with me. In fact, in the one partnership that I have that plays a weak (11-14) 1NT, we play transfers.

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?