[Hanoi5]

Opening 3NT with AKQJ seventh in a minor suit is known as the Gambling 3NT. However, I have often heard people talk about how a certain bridge action is gambling, how someone is playing poker and not bridge, etc. I found myself holding:

♠AQ8
♥K76
♦JT9864
♣5

I passed as dealer and saw my partner open 2NT which normally shows 20-21 balanced. I was playing with an unknown person so I just blasted to 6NT but later I thought it might be looked as a gambling action. I simulated and 6NT can apparently be made 66% of the time (6♦ from me, my other choise, 82%). And so I wondered:

- Do you consider an action as gambling if it can win on certain percentage of the time (50% is gambling or any number you choose, of course the question is, what number would you choose), or
- Do you consider gambling any action that surpasses investigation (normal or otherwise) in the interest of finding scientifically about the best strain/level, etc?

[aguahombre]

The casino industry seems to think "gambling" is when the gambler has less than a 50-50 shot.

So, if your sims or your guess says the odds are in your favor, you aren't gambling. On that hand, if you don't explore at all for slam you are gambling.

The Gambling 3NT is technically a misnomer, because it is a descriptive and tactical bid, not really based on the number of times one will make 3NT. But, nobody has come up with a better term.

I don't think deliberately misstating ones values is gambling; but deliberately and knowingly taking an anti-percentage line (like playing the short hand to have the key card in a suit) is gambling ---commonly because of the state of the match.

[Zelandakh]

When opps describe bidding as "gambling" or "like poker" then what they really mean is that they do not approve of it. I have had my bidding described this way plenty of times, usually either because I made a preempt on an "unsuitable" hand after partner passed or because of a bidding mix-up ending too high. Oddly the latter occurs much more often playing "simple Acol" than with a "complex" relay system.

[han]

I don't often hear people talk about gambling. I think the term is fairly meaningless in bridge, where it is a good idea to think in terms of expected value (just as in poker). You didn't specify the form of scoring but certainly at IMPs I think 6NT is just really bad bridge, gambling or not. I'd look for a five card major and if partner doesn't have it bid 4D, showing diamonds. An alternative would be to show diamonds immediately.

If a certain bid places you in a 66% contract, that doesn't mean it has a 66% chance to win. Maybe going slower means you end up in the same contract, except in some of those 34% where you find a better contract. In that case the blast would never give you a chance to win and sometimes gives you a chance to lose. In other words, your reasoning in this thread is too simplistic.

Blasting has nothing to do with gambling either. In some situations it can be good to blast instead of investigating and giving away information. This is especially the case when (1) one contract is quite likely to be the best contract, and (2) investigating is unlikely to help you find a better contract, and is likely to give away information. An example is the auction 1S - p - 2S where you as opener have a hand that might just make slam opposite the perfectly fitting maximum. Often just bidding game will be better as by investigating slam you may not be able to find out if partner has the perfecto anyway, and in doing so you make it easier for the opponents.

This doesn't seem to be one of those situations, it is simply not clear what the best contract is.

[gwnn]

And Han didn't even mention that even if we get to a good 6N, maybe we missed 7♦. The 66% figure is kind of misleading.

[Yu18772]

I was described as gambler when I played first time with one of my friends. Unfortunately she was a beginner and she was very late, so we did not discuss anything - not even 1430 or 0314. Of course on the first hand my partner opened 1♥,
while I was looking at AJx, x, AKTxx,AQxx and I simply put 6NT on the table. My LHO (who happened to be a mediocre bridge teacher) frowned something about "young gamblers" "dont you have bids between 1♥ and 6NT" etc...but still had to lead, and led the wrong card. The bid gained IMPs, as at the other table the bidding was very scientific, which allowed for the correct lead and -1. Was 6NT a gamble? Yes, but it was a calculated one.
Over all i think that there are two types of bridge players that are truly "gambling" -
1) Good or very good players that take "calculated risks", they forsake the available tools for another scientific reason (most often either there is no way to obtain information needed or if the inquiry process may give too much info to the opponents).
This may occasionally lead to bad results, but would often gain.
2) Lesser players which dont have the tools or the patience or both for slow bidding, and for these the "blast bids" are common and tend to loose more.
Funny enough, the first kind are described as gamblers more often, because they make bids their ops dont understand, but it worked, while if you gamble and go down the ops are usually not complaining.
Personally, I consider a bid to be gambling if there is a reasonable alternative of scientific investigation, or if it is based more on "card feeling" than on information received from the bidding.

[gwnn]

And more often than not, people from category 2 think they're from category 1.

[gnasher]

I think "gambling" means doing something that has a high variance. It might have a positive expectation, but it's gambling because it puts a significant number of IMPs or matchpoints at risk.

A good example would be bidding a slam which you know is on a finesse and probably won't be bid at the other table.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-September-23, 03:18, said:

When opps describe bidding as "gambling" or "like poker" then what they really mean is that they do not approve of it. I have had my bidding described this way plenty of times, usually either because I made a preempt on an "unsuitable" hand after partner passed or because of a bidding mix-up ending too high. Oddly the latter occurs much more often playing "simple Acol" than with a "complex" relay system.

This is not odd at all. One system requires a lot of thinking and judgment, while the other more or less has a correct call for every hand. Especially once a relay is bid.

[rhm]

 gwnn, on 2011-September-23, 03:48, said:

And Han didn't even mention that even if we get to a good 6N, maybe we missed 7♦. The 66% figure is kind of misleading.

This is all true and that's why it is usually right to go slow with strong hands, in particular when you have good agreements. However, there is an art to know when to blast and Han's attitude, though fashionable, seems to me far too restrictive.
Blasting (or gambling) is frowned upon. Yet I think this attitude is wrong. It is a great art, to know when to give up science (even when it might help), requiring good judgment.

Bridge is not played double dummy nor are most contracts lay-down. If that would be the case we all would by now probably use some sort of strong club with relay system possibilities whenever the combined strengths makes game clear.
While these systems have their triumphs it is still a minority, who plays them.

Research, I am not sure how old that is by now, once confirmed that contracts tended to be more successful when reached by fewer bids. Any additional round of bidding does not only exchange information between you and your partner.
It gives also information to opponents to find a maybe double dummy defense or a useful sacrifice, even if we ignore the fact that additional rounds of bidding does increase the chance for misunderstandings.

Going back to the Hanoi5's example.
6NT may not be the safest contract, but still the most desirable one at pairs and then it may be quite vital not to give opponents information about declarer's hand and a blind opening lead might be helpful.
Even if 7♦ is on, how confident are you that your bidding agreements will uncover that with the confidence required for such a contract at any form of scoring? 2NT in that respect is still not a very good start for finding that out.
What do you loose if 7♦ is not on and opponents now have a better idea how to defend the small slam, a question routinely overlooked by many. 6♦ turned out to be safer, making it at IMPs a slightly better contract, but only slightly.
Remember you still loose 2 IMPS to 6NT, which means on average you will only break even when 6♦ makes one case in seven where 6NT is down (which is not the same as might be beaten double dummy).
Of course if they do not reach slam in the other room there is no point in bidding 6NT in preference to 6♦ double dummy, but that seems unlikely.
However, suit slams have their own perils (ruffs for example) and it is often hard to tell in the bidding whether a suit contract is in fact safer than 6NT.
All this is depressing news for the scientists, so most of them prefer to ignore the facts.

I remember an instance where I opened third in hand at unfavorable vulnerability a strong hand with 6♣ in the German league. If my memory serves me well I had something like ♠Kx,♥-,♦AKxx,♣AKQJxxx.
The deal was played at 30 tables and I was the only one who bid the slam in one bid. I was playing Polish club and had good machinery available.
Of course 6♣ might have no play or 7♣ could have been lay-down or ♦ might be a superior strain. But I judged all this unlikely; I was worried about a cheap sacrifice and thought the opening lead might be helpful.
I do not remember the exact layout, but I made 13 tricks after they mis-discarded when I ran my ♣ suit. 6♣ was a good contract missed at the other table after a 2♣ opening.

Beginners do not blast, they jump around with strong hands for want of anything better, because they do not understand, how to gather vital information and what to look for. This is something very different.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Gambling is guessing a final contract without gatehring information to know whether it would be a good or bad one.

You normally gamble when the result is good odds to be positive to your side.

[han]

 rhm, on 2011-September-24, 05:03, said:

However, there is an art to know when to blast and Han's attitude, though fashionable, seems to me far too restrictive.

I don't recall saying anything about my owl style or attitude, what are you referring to?

[JLOGIC]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-24, 03:12, said:

I think "gambling" means doing something that has a high variance. It might have a positive expectation, but it's gambling because it puts a significant number of IMPs or matchpoints at risk.

A good example would be bidding a slam which you know is on a finesse and probably won't be bid at the other table.

When someone says it I think that it doesn't mean this though it should. I feel like people mean its high variance and they think it's -EV when they say it in general. It seems to have a negative connotation

[pooltuna]

 han, on 2011-September-24, 05:57, said:

I don't recall saying anything about my owl style or attitude, what are you referring to?

He is probably referring to your general style of posts rather than anything specific in this thread.

[rhm]

 han, on 2011-September-24, 05:57, said:

An example is the auction 1S - p - 2S where you as opener have a hand that might just make slam opposite the perfectly fitting maximum. Often just bidding game will be better as by investigating slam you may not be able to find out if partner has the perfecto anyway, and in doing so you make it easier for the opponents.
This doesn't seem to be one of those situations, it is simply not clear what the best contract is.

Quote

I don't recall saying anything about my owl style or attitude, what are you referring to?

Rightly or wrongly I interpreted the first statement that way.
In my view the example you mention for "gambling" is not gambling at all but simply common sense. If it is clear what the best contract is, where is the gamble?
With regard to Hanoi5 blasting to 6NT, I find this bid acceptable assuming that few partnerships have the tools to show a hand with long ♦s, ♣ shortage and slam interest over 2NT.
If you have a way of agreeing ♦ and use minorwood or kickback, this might be preferable. But my guess is few partnership can accomplish that either.

Rainer Herrmann

[jogs]

 Hanoi5, on 2011-September-22, 21:46, said:

I passed as dealer and saw my partner open 2NT which normally shows 20-21 balanced. I was playing with an unknown person so I just blasted to 6NT but later I thought it might be looked as a gambling action. I simulated and 6NT can apparently be made 66% of the time (6♦ from me, my other choise, 82%). And so I wondered:

I don't believe those numbers. Would someone else please run a sim and verify those results? Seems too high.