[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.