[johnblu]

Using SAYC convention, we have used Gerber in the past when the opening bid is 1 or 2NT. On this hand we were not vul. The opps passed throughout.
I opened 1S, my partner responded 1NT. I jumped to 3D, and my partner bid 3NT. Then I bid 4C, intending Gerber.
Partner's hand was singleton low spade, Kxxxxx in hts, QJx in clubs, and 3 small diamonds.
Partner passed my 4C.
My hand was AQ10xx spades, singleton low ht, Ax clubs, and AQJ9x diamonds.

1) I realize I was being too aggressive with my slam try, but with this bidding sequence, wasn't this a proper place to use Gerber?
2) And even if my partner did not consider it Gerber, shouldn't he at least have bid 4D?
Thanks

[Stephen Tu]

Gerber should only apply as a jump after a natural 1nt or 2nt bid. With partnership agreement, it's also possible to use it after 2 level stayman (1nt-2c-2h-4c, some people play this as RKC gerber, part of "Baze"). It shouldn't apply in other auctions; it is massively overused by int- players. Properly utilized it comes up like once every two years; it is so rare that probably it should be used as something else but some # of experts retain it because there aren't a lot of super-obvious uses for something like 1nt-4c anyway.

Generally it is assumed not to apply over 3nt, because 4c is too valuable to give up for ace asking, it is more useful either as trump suit suggestion or showing a control in clubs, depending on context.

(1). No, Gerber shouldn't apply. 4c is presumably natural here, showing a tremendously strong 5-0-4-4 hand typically, I would think. And even if it were Gerber you don't have an appropriate hand to use it; see below.Partner has said that he heard you have a GF hand with spades and diamonds; 3nt says he has interest in neither suit, and also not enough for slam. So you should listen to him and pass.

(2). You are in a GF auction, so partner should not pass 4c, this much is right.


Generally you should only use Gerber or blackwood when:

• there is no uncontrolled unbid side suit with 2+ fast losers (avoid opponents cashing AK in the side suit)
• you know there is sufficient overall strength for 12 tricks (because either overwhelming number of HCP, or have lots of shape + long running suits and have found the hands fit particularly well during the auction). Otherwise you find yourself in slam with 3/4 or 4/4 aces, but still run short of tricks eventually, which is no better than being in slam and losing 2 aces off the top.
• you don't have a void (partner may have ace of void suit which is often useless, unless previous auction can rule this out)
• knowing the answer will reasonably enable to count tricks, particularly if 7 is possible (sometimes it is better for *partner* to ask, as he will be able to better count tricks, in such cases you can sometimes cue bid instead to try to induce him to do the asking).

Gerber/blackwood are slam *avoidance* tools, when you are already sure you want to be in slam except if off two aces (or keycards if playing a key card variant). They aren't good slam "try" tools when you don't have sufficient knowledge about the combined assets yet.

Here, partner has shown nothing but 6 hcp and no fit. Opposite 17 that is not enough for slam. You will have trouble to even make game. Most would rebid only 2d, not playing special gadgetry, waiting for somewhat stronger to force to game.

[mcphee]

Gerber is a convention I have not used in 50 years.

[rmnka447]

REVISED

Since you're playing SAYC, a 1 NT response is limited to approximately 6-10 value. It can be any shape because there is no other response that limits responder's hand to that point range that isn't a raise.

You're hand is a 17 HCP 4 loser hand. For slam to be right, responder has to have cards that will cover 3 of your losers plus you have to have a fit somewhere. It's possible, but highly unlikely that partner has cards to cover those losers. So, game looks like a more realistic maximum on this hand.

As for Gerber, no, it isn't the right tool to use in this instance. If partner's response is 4 ♥ showing one (♥ A), that still doesn't give you any clue about if partner could cover the other losers in your hand. Ace/Keycard asking conventions (Gerber, Blackwood, RKCB, etc.) are for making sure you're not missing two top losers once you determined the assets for slam are there. If partner held ♥ Axxxxx instead of ♥ Kxxxxx and recognized your "Gerber" bid, the response would have been 4 ♥ showing one A. But you should be about to see that bidding slam wouldn't good.

In any case, you need to find a fit before even thinking of slam. So how about completing the description of your hand first by simply bidding 4 ♦. Partner can then bid game if it looks right, pass 4 ♦ or make some move toward slam if that seems right. With the actual hand your partner had, passing 4 ♦ leaves you in a reasonably good spot.

But just maybe partner had something like ♠ x ♥ A10xx ♦ Kxxx ♣ K10xx and decided to be conservative with an initial 1 NT response because of the known ♠ misfit. After the 3 ♦ jump shift, partner decides to offer 3 NT as a game instead of raising ♦. But when you bid 4 ♦, partner should get real excited about slam prospects knowing you are 5-5. His/her hand has suddenly gained immensely in value. It has a big ♦ fit with an honor that likely consolidates the suit, controls in the side suits, and a stiff in ♠ that will allow for ruffing ♠ losers in your hand. Partner should now show slam interest by bidding 4 ♥ which shows a ♥ control and agrees ♦. (If partner had a real ♥ suit, it would have been right to bid it over 3 ♦, so 4 ♥ can't be to play.)

After the 4 ♥ control bid, you have reason to believe slam is possible, and have several ways to continue.

[msjennifer]

Sir,I have never ever come across a hand where GERBER would be more useful than all the various normal or artificial bids.In fact, personally I dislike the Gerber convention.We ,therefore use the 4C and 4D bids as transfer to 4H and 4S respectively.(I think this is known as South African TEXAS convention ).And the 4H/S as natural (when responder is afraid of a lead going through his Kx if the hand is played by the opener..)

[pescetom]

msjennifer, on 2019-January-27, 10:20, said:

Sir,I have never ever come across a hand where GERBER would be more useful than all the various normal or artificial bids.In fact, personally I dislike the Gerber convention.We ,therefore use the 4C and 4D bids as transfer to 4H and 4S respectively.(I think this is known as South African TEXAS convention ).And the 4H/S as natural (when responder is afraid of a lead going through his Kx if the hand is played by the opener..)

I've tried both Gerber+Texas and South African Texas, not thrilled about either but on the whole I think the former is more effective. It is compatible with more partners and gives you three real meanings instead of two and a half - 4H as natural is more a safety net for sleepy partners than a way to switch declarer (protecting that Kx but putting the strong hand on the table).
Gerber works fine over 1NT or 2NT, all it takes is firm agreements about what happens over 3NT when partner wants to ask Aces or has slam interest and clubs.

[mikestar13]

pescetom, on 2019-January-27, 15:22, said:

I've tried both Gerber+Texas and South African Texas, not thrilled about either but on the whole I think the former is more effective. It is compatible with more partners and gives you three real meanings instead of two and a half - 4H as natural is more a safety net for sleepy partners than a way to switch declarer (protecting that Kx but putting the strong hand on the table).
Gerber works fine over 1NT or 2NT, all it takes is firm agreements about what happens over 3NT when partner wants to ask Aces or has slam interest and clubs.

From a technical perspective, South African Texas is more useful over a weak or mini no trump when being able to protect your own positional stoppers vs. partner's potential ones is more important and needing Gerber is even less likely.
From a psychological perspective, SAT not only prevents 1NT-4♥(transfer)-P, but also 1NT-4♣(Gerber), which is usually a judgement error on the 4♣ bidder's part.

[was78]

I read many of the posts considering Gerber, and honestly, I don't understand the vitriol toward Gerber or the condescending attitude toward players who use it. I have been playing bridge for 60 years. I am not a "weak" or low caliber" player. I earn masterpoints almost every time I play. My spouse and I have always used Gerber, and very successfully, I might add. True, it can't be used in some situations, but in can in many, and not only over a 1NT or 2NT bid. I realize there are alternatives, but I don't criticize players who use other conventions. That's their choice. Gerber is mine.

I could go on and on, but perhaps the main advantage of Gerber is being able to find out how many aces my partner has and still being able to stop at 4H or 4S. Similarly, it's easy to find out how many kings and still stop at the 5 level, if it's clear that there is no slam. You can't do that with Blackwood.

Please give Gerber users the respect we deserve.

[Cyberyeti]

msjennifer, on 2019-January-27, 10:20, said:

Sir,I have never ever come across a hand where GERBER would be more useful than all the various normal or artificial bids.In fact, personally I dislike the Gerber convention.We ,therefore use the 4C and 4D bids as transfer to 4H and 4S respectively.(I think this is known as South African TEXAS convention ).And the 4H/S as natural (when responder is afraid of a lead going through his Kx if the hand is played by the opener..)

You've never been dealt KQJ10xxxx, x, x, KQx or similar ? opposite a strong NT, unlucky, you bid 4♦, partner bids, you blackwood and find he had Axx, KQJx, KQJx, Jx and you're off at the 5 level.

[mycroft]

Replying to an 8-year-old post (even if necro'ed) is likely not going to get read by the poster.

And yeah, about 3 times a year, we get the hand where I can run 12 tricks, and it's simply a question of how many I lose first. Having an ace-asking call is helpful.

Gerber with suits - I will repeat what I always repeat. If you're scared of having to take 11 tricks if you're off 2 aces, then you should have confirmed that *before* ace-asking. So the ability to stop in 4M is so rarely relevant that I don't want to lose a useful meaning for 4♣ (even if it's a "never bid slam" splinter, but especially if I can't cue the ♣A).

Sure, bidding like that allows you to pull out "ole Black" more often, and it's even better because we can stop in 4 rather than 5, but the "we're missing one ace. If it's the diamond ace, we can make 12 tricks. If it's the club ace, they're cashing ♦AK(Q)..." It leads to great results when you bid slam; it leads to good results when you stay out of slam (especially if it only makes 4); it really bites when you guess wrong with the "missing one" though.

Gerber is a really good convention. It is! It's just that:

• there's almost always a better meaning for 4♣ than "really good";
  
• its lure is so strong that even National Championship Finalists will bid it when the answer doesn't help.

On another note, however, I am beginning to lean into "if 31 flat makes slam 50+% of the time there aren't two quick losers, maybe we need an ace-asking quant bid." But how to resolve "we're off two aces" and "we're off one ace, bid 6 on a max" (while still allowing "stop in 4M" if what I have is "12 tricks in spades if we don't lose two first") is a question needing answering.

[mikeh]

Gerber was invented at a time when bidding theory was woeful in comparison to today. In NA, in particular, few experts even formed partnerships in which they had detailed agreements. Roth-Stone and Kaplan-Sheinwold were exceptions rather than the rule. And those methods were, by today’s standards, light in detailed agreements.

So Gerber was useful. Especially for slam bidding because back then, and for decades to come, cuebidding was rudimentary. The ‘Italian’ style of cuebidding, wherein one cuebids 1st and 2nd round controls up the line went popular in NA. I learned bridge in the early 1970s and one always cuebid first round controls before second round and thus caused slam auctions to get perilously high before one found out which second round controls were missing…or one stopped because one couldn’t safely find out if partner has an important control. The Italians won WCs year after year. Yes, it seems certain that they were cheating, but they were also far better at slam bidding than the North Americans.

Bidding theory exploded in the 1970s. Partly due to the formation of the Dallas Aces but also because of the rise of some young, smart, bidding theorists.Rubin-Grannovetter, Eric Kokish, Marty Bergen, Larry Cohen, and others of that ilk.

So a raft of new methods were developed, with lots of artificiality.

While Gerber didn’t suddenly become useless, it became less necessary while at the same time other uses were discovered for it.

My main partnership has about 160 pages of notes. And we have agreements that are embodied in the notes because we’ve played them for so long or they’re so common that we don’t bother writing them down.

So a 4C bid for us might be:

1. A preemptive raise
2. Showing a 4=6 hand 1D 1S 4C, 1C 1H 4C, etc
3. A cue bid
4. A natural, forcing bid showing clubs
5. Optional keycard
6. An artificial relay preparatory to signing off in a gf relay auction
7. Modified KC over partner’s preempt
8. Leaping Michaels
9. Non leaping Michaels
10. A form of takeout over a 3N bid
11. A spade-diamond slam try over a 2N opening bid
12. A natural slam try after 2N 3N, since we play 3N as a mild minor oriented slam try (we get to 3N via 3S)
13. Modified Gerber after a 1N opening

Many of these uses simply weren’t around when Gerber was popular.

All bidding methods entail compromises. There are far more hands than can ever be shown perfectly in any method. So all system designers seek to arpttain maximal efficiency. Using 4C as ace asking is universally seen, in the expert community, as an inefficient approach within the context of any reasonably coherent method.

As a side note, I’ve had Gerber on my CC for 50 years. I don’t think I’ve used it in the past 30 years. I’ve used each of the other listed uses much more often, although some of them are used only in my main partnership.

So…if a player is content with playing a simple method where he or she doesn’t have detailed slam exploration methods, then Gerber is probably still useful. But for any player who is serious about learning to bid well, Gerber is an anachronism.

Take a car from the 1960s…imagine it’s been stored perfectly so it’s in showroom condition. It still works but in comparison to modern cars, it’s likely to handle poorly. To have bad brakes, poor tires, bad fuel economy, few comforts such as climate control, power steering, good sound system, head restraints, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc. it still does a job of transporting people…but just not as well as the more complex modern car. That’s Gerber.