My following remarks assume matchpoints. S knows when N bids 5H that N has only 2 of the 4 missing key cards (SK, HAQ & CA), probably HAQ, so he should surely pass. But if he bids on, say because he’s desperate for a top, surely he should bid 6N. Note that both contracts require the S finesse to work and either W to have at least 2H or singleton 10 or E to have no more than 3S or that dummy’s minor suits are reversed. Also 6N makes and 6H fails even if E has SK if W has all 5H!

Small correction: if W has specifically 3-5-3-2 distribution, S can make 6H despite the 5-0 H break.

Hi
this is a general question, so I would welcome answers from everyone, not just Bobby.
My partnership plays a similar style, where 2D is almost always waiting (with sometimes as much as 11 HCP!), and a 3NT response shows 25-27.

However, unlike the column, we always used 4C as Gerber rather than Stayman.
My question is for these very random hands of 25+, is it better to use Stayman or Gerber in order to avoid a convention mix-up?
If you suggest Stayman, how would you ask aces over 3NT, and how would you make a quantitative invite?

Hi David,

Not so fast.

While I do not necessarily disagree with South chancing 6NT rather than either passing or continuing on to 6 hearts there are other chances.

Those other chances would have to do with other holdings by the responder such as:
1. s. x, h. AQxx, d. Jxxxx, c. Jxx, 2. s. x, h. AQxx, d. Jxxx, c. J10xx, or 3. s. x, h. AQxx, d. xxx, c. J10xxx.

All of the above would, of course be dependent on 3-2 hearts, but with the normal (67+%) heart split all would be much better off in 6 of that suit. Besides partner would have every right to be quite upset, if overruled after finding the heart fit.

Also, of course, I agree that South should pass, but like Will Rogers once might have said if he had played bridge: “I never met a 25 point hand, nor a beautiful girl, I didn’t like”.

In conclusion and while at the table in very tough competition, it is very difficult to visualize all of the potential hands partner may have, offering a likely surprise 13 cards which match up favorably with yours. Sure, it sometimes can be done, but those ” always moving parts” in evaluation are not always clearly visible and often I used to just rely on “gut instincts”.

However the balanced and, of course, minimum nature of South’s hand might (should) cause him to not be too optimistic, but as the late and great Edgar Kaplan used to say on vu-graph while commentating at the World Championship, “Often when there are 11 sure tricks while in a slam or 8 tricks while in a NT game, one more sometimes magically appears”.

Avi –

I would advocate Stayman (4C) + quantitative raise (4N) over Gerber here, reasoning as follows:

1) In a quantitative auction (NT), one simply adds points, so the key card aspect is generally less important, and

2) Key cards are most often sought after a suit fit is established, and in these auctions Stayman is probably the most common way that fits are found.

Once a fit is found — (say, 2C-2D; 3N-4C; 4M-?) — I will defer to Our Host on what experts do. One possible treatment might be that a 5 bid in a lower suit is a cue bid inviting slam in the Stayman suit, while 4N is a Q raise and 5N is a choice of slams.

The one sequence that might be anomalous is 4S over 4H. Is it five spades and four hearts looking for the best game, or is a cue for hearts? It is likely a partnership agreement thing but, again, I defer to Our Host — a true expert.

Gerber might be more helpful if the responder is the one contemplating slam in a suit, no matter what the opener has in support, and so wants to check for key cards. I would hazard to guess that such holdings are uncommon enough to make Gerber less useful than Stayman + Quantitative.

Hi Avi,

My suggestion is to generally play (over 2NT openings, 2 clubs followed by 2NT or 2 clubs followed by 3NT all after waiting responses by partner) clubs Stayman, and transfers with 4 direct clubs over all forms of strong 2NT bids as Gerber, but over 3NT, 4NT quantatative and 5 clubs Gerber with no number of kings ask available and that would also always apply over any natural 3NT bid anytime in the auction (a jump to 5 clubs always Super Gerber and 4 NT only a raise, aiming at slam).

It may be now worth noting that in the super expert player category many partnerships have developed lower level ace asks (redwood and other funny but rhythmic names) in order to keep the level lower for finding out other specific information).

Finally (whew?) after a 4NT quantatative bid 5NT by responder is forcing and often requires both partner to then bid unbid 4 card suits up the line in order to search out a previously unknown 4-4 fit in a suit before (after checking) finding out there are none and then arriving by force in 6NT. Simple example: 1NT P 4NT P 5NT P 6 clubs (or else the lowest ranking 4 card suit held all the way to a fit or 6NT).

Hi Jim2,

Thanks for your intervention (crossed in cyberspace) and I tend to agree with you in everything you say including the spelling of quantitative.

BTW, sometimes key card ace asking (with its 5 aces and sometimes 6 when 1 of 2 suits may eventually be trump) can get cramped for space, but rather than be negative seeking solutions, be positive and hope those sequences do not materialize.

If one spies at least a little cynicism, he or she is spying right.

Am I missing something? Of the 3 hands you claim to be better in H rather than NT, all are either certain or virtually certain in 6NT: 1) 1S, 4H, 5D, 2C. Even if D 5-0, it still makes if the S finesse is right, while 6H probably goes down (CA & D ruff or H 5-0); 2) 1S, 4H, 4D & 3C; 3) 1S, 4H, 3D, 4C. Even if C 5-0, it still makes if the S finesse is right, while 6H probably goes down (CA and C ruff or H 5-0.

Hi David,

No, you are not missing anything. I think I had the right idea, but thoughtlessly added an extra minor suit trick to each hand, allowing 12 tricks in NT to be scored instead of the 11 I intended for NT but, of course 12 for hearts (scoring, in effect 5 hearts tricks instead of only 4 for NT).

Even though I may win the argument, I obviously do not deserve to, since I carelessly failed in the presentation.

However, overall it may indirectly suggest that bridge is a difficult game, but the idea of a 4-4 fit allowing 5 trump tricks with normal breaks and also more than 4 real tricks on other types of declarer cross-ruffs or dummy reversals goes to the very core of what to emphasize in the bidding, against the low percentage “mirror” distributions (exactly the same distribution in the same suits) or whenever there are overlapping high card or long card advantages which will tend to make the same number of tricks in NT.

The above is only meant for a a general description and not to be a primer in bridge bidding.