[StrongCL]

I opened with a weak 2S bid. My partner then bid 4 clubs and expected me to know that it was Gerber and that she was asking for Aces. I was confused. Should we not find a fit and should there not have been a NT bid prior to using Gerber?

[Stephen Tu]

It's not supposed to be Gerber here. It's *possible* partner wanted to play "4c = roman key card ask over preempts" https://bvillebridge...after-preempts/ . This is not a terrible convention, because 4c as natural or a splinter isn't that useful after a preempt in another suit. So being able to ask and stay low has some benefit (fewer 5 level -1 accidents because of a ruff).


But this is also an advanced convention and someone who knew about this should also know it is not something one springs upon a partner undiscussed. More likely partner is one of the large cohort of beginner/intermediate-ish players who got the idea that "All 4c bids should be Gerber", which is a bad idea and should be strongly discouraged.

Gerber normally applies only after natural 1nt/2nt bids or rebids, you are correct.

[paulg]

StrongCL, on 2023-July-02, 15:55, said:

I opened with a weak 2S bid. My partner then bid 4 clubs and expected me to know that it was Gerber and that she was asking for Aces. I was confused. Should we not find a fit and should there not have been a NT bid prior to using Gerber?

There are a large number of club players in my area who would think this is normal and would assume 4♣ is Gerber most of the time. They are mainly intermediate players who have played the same methods at the club for some considerable time.

I doubt that any regular tournament player would think the same, especially undiscussed.

Having said that, I expect a lot of experts play 4♣ as some form of key card.

[mycroft]

Agree with Paul. It's much more likely you've hit a "4♣ is Gerber When Obvious" player. They also tend to be "4♣ is how I look for slam" players.

If it's pickup, go with "I'm sorry, I didn't recognize it, I only play Gerber over NT" and continue for a few hands (and cross them off your list of People you want to Partner Again). If it's a semi-regular, take this is a reminder that your next system discussion is "preempts and responses". And discuss what preempts look like, what 2NT is after, confirm that new suits by responder are Forcing, ... so that it won't happen again. And if semi-regular partner insists on "Gerber When Obvious" - well, it's not the worst agreement. Hopefully the rest of the system is more to your liking.

But I bet this is just The Permanent Pickup Pool default. And possibly one of the reasons this partner is still in the Permanent Pickup Pool.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2023-July-03, 03:11, said:

There are a large number of club players in my area who would think this is normal and would assume 4♣ is Gerber most of the time. They are mainly intermediate players who have played the same methods at the club for some considerable time.

I should say that this group all enjoy their game and are happy with their methods.

But they play an eclectic group of conventions that are probably unique. I suspect that this is the case in many UK clubs, as there have never been a formally defined British system. so conventions are picked up ad hoc over the decades perhaps due to someone seeing a bridge article.

So 4♣ as Gerber is played by most, the only form of checkback is Crowhurst (since they dislike opening a weak no trump with a five-card major), Blackwood is prolific but some play KCB or RKCB or Norman, Michaels is not commonplace.

They are a generation who did not play on BBO before coronavirus and few play at random tables. Hopefully those that do play more standard methods

But I am seeing more five-card majors, strong no trumps and the occasional short club, so the world is changing.

[mw64ahw]

In the UK I would assume a keycard ask if partner plays RKC, Gerber otherwise.
Also the style of Weak 2 versus vulnerability is something to factor in so perhaps 2NT is a better initial response to judge strength.

[pescetom]

I would just pass and smile, we will not play together again.

[Gilithin]

As it is an unnecessary jump, I think a sensible interpretation is as a splinter. I find it unreasonable to expect a random pick-up partner to take this as Gerber without agreement. The simplest way of continuing is to bid 4♠ without looking at your hand, then discuss some system stuff after the hand. A good starter for a pick-up partner is "4♣ is never Gerber". With a regular partner, playing 4♣ as modified RKCG over a 3♦, 3♥ or 3♠ opening is actually a good idea but only worth it after you have finalised more or less everything else.

[was78]

I read many of the posts considering Gerber, on this froum and others, 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. Please give Gerber users the respect we deserve.

[pescetom]

 was78, on 2025-November-02, 10:11, said:

I read many of the posts considering Gerber, on this froum and others, 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. Please give Gerber users the respect we deserve.

Could you please give an example of a hand you recently bid with Gerber and where you think it gave you some kind of edge? I'm curious.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2025-November-02, 12:03, said:

Could you please give an example of a hand you recently bid with Gerber and where you think it gave you some kind of edge? I'm curious.

I posted one in the other thread, KQJ10xxxx, x, x, KQx opposite Axx(x), KQJx, KQJ(x), Jx(x) 1N-4♣-4♦-4♠-P If you have to blackwood you get too high

[DavidKok]

Was this a hand you held? My mistake, I was under the impression that you made that example up.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-02, 14:45, said:

Was this a hand you held? My mistake, I was under the impression that you made that example up.

I held something very similar to that if not that, although it wasn't recent.

[DavidKok]

It's interesting to me to see the same argument appearing in three threads at the same time.

In https://www.bridgeba...80#entry1083822, mikeh argues that occasional gains from making a reverse F1 do not outweigh the benefits of having cheap forcing bids, and we need to look at the system gains and losses as a whole. In particular, we should consider their frequency.

In https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1083802, Adam presents 5♠332 minimum as a 2♠ rebid (which is, naturally, the only hand type that would rebid 2♠ holding only five spades) and responder being stuck with a 1=4=4=4 minimum (which is, naturally, the only hand type with a singleton spade and fewer than five clubs in 2♣ - though other minima with a singleton spade might be stuck too. We can of course only end up in a 6 card fit if opener has 5♠332 and responder has a minimum with 1 spade and no rebid) as an argument for a NF 2NT over having a cheap forcing bid available. So far, nobody has mentioned frequencies.

In today's double necro of old threads on Gerber, we're asked to respect the convention for the times it lets a partnership stop at the 4- or 5-level where Blackwood would fail. I am prepared to argue that there are other options to investigate slam than Blackwood and Gerber. But, even setting that aside, the key question here is how often this solves a problem. The frequency is very important, and a nice example from 'not recent' is not a strong case.