[pilowsky]

Here's a hand that just came up in a Daylong.

---

Here is the link to my result. Here is the double-dummy.
I think this is interesting because in third seat I took a chance with my nice diamond suit (and low HCP) and opened 1NT. I was hoping that if partner responds Stayman this likely indicates stoppers in the other three suits. I already know from practice that after a rebid of 3NT GIB will pass. Also, advanced robots make passive leads into NT contracts (almost always).
If partner passes I should make 1NT.
If EW interferes, I'm still good - I even have a 2♦ rebid.
So, in summary, even though GIB doesn't play G3NT - this seems to be an effective workaround.

[Tramticket]

3NT is a poor contract and the fact that GIB can't make the obvious lead might lead to a good score, but doesn't really improve any objective assessment of the contract.

A gambling 3NT would not be appropriate here, even if it were part of the system. In addition to promising a solid seven or eight-card suit, a gambling 3NT (as generally played) denies aces and kings in side suits, with the expectation that partner will pull to 4m without all three suits stops. If you opened 3NT, partner would bid 4♣ and you would correct to 4♦ - not a great contract.

I don't mind the 1NT opening if playing 15-17, but jumping to 3NT in response to Stayman was a wild action that got lucky.

[Cyberyeti]

I only ever followed this sort of sequence twice. Once I psyched 1N with an 8 card suit. The second time I picked up

---

or similar, opened 1N, partner bid 2♥ transfer and at this point I realised both black suits were actually clubs.

3N may be a reasonable gamble on this hand playing with/against robots, but it's not bridge.

[pilowsky]

Tramticket, on 2020-June-11, 05:05, said:

3NT is a poor contract and the fact that GIB can't make the obvious lead might lead to a good score, but doesn't really improve any objective assessment of the contract.

A gambling 3NT would not be appropriate here, even if it were part of the system. In addition to promising a solid seven or eight-card suit, a gambling 3NT (as generally played) denies aces and kings in side suits, with the expectation that partner will pull to 4m without all three suits stops. If you opened 3NT, partner would bid 4♣ and you would correct to 4♦ - not a great contract.

I don't mind the 1NT opening if playing 15-17, but jumping to 3NT in response to Stayman was a wild action that got lucky.

Gambling 3NT is never appropriate because it is not part of the GIB system. If you bid 3NT GIB will respond 6NT with the North hand. Here's one from yesterday.
As for the robots making a poor lead, don't you check what your opponent's leads are before you start a game? In this particular form of Bridge the rules are as presented and I'm just following them as best I can. Which is not that well most of the time.
I still do not agree with the idea of "this is bridge and that is not bridge". Even though I am playing against three robots (and I still worry about the quality of the North robot), in fact, I am still competing against over 1000 real people in a massive Daylong. To me, this is one of the purest forms of bridge there is. You absolutely cannot blame your partner. (except maybe the North robot) you are entirely reliant on your own ability. This is the reason I think the weekly Forum challenge format is such an excellent test. We all get to play the same set of hands. It's a shame we don't all try.

[Tramticket]

pilowsky, on 2020-June-11, 06:48, said:

Gambling 3NT is never appropriate because it is not part of the GIB system. If you bid 3NT GIB will respond 6NT with the North hand. Here's one from yesterday.
As for the robots making a poor lead, don't you check what your opponent's leads are before you start a game? In this particular form of Bridge the rules are as presented and I'm just following them as best I can. Which is not that well most of the time.
I still do not agree with the idea of "this is bridge and that is not bridge". Even though I am playing against three robots (and I still worry about the quality of the North robot), in fact, I am still competing against over 1000 real people in a massive Daylong. To me, this is one of the purest forms of bridge there is. You absolutely cannot blame your partner. (except maybe the North robot) you are entirely reliant on your own ability. This is the reason I think the weekly Forum challenge format is such an excellent test. We all get to play the same set of hands. It's a shame we don't all try.

It was you who mentioned the possibility of a Gambling 3NT. I was just pointing out that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a gambling 3NT is.

I doubt that you will find many who would choose to lead from three small in a major rather leading the five-card suit headed by the AK. But if I take you at face value, that you bid 3NT because west wouldn't lead it's suit, there is still a significant risk that the west computer will lead it's partner's suit and you will still go down quickly.

And no, I don't think that playing bridge with a computer partner and two computer opponents is real bridge. At best it is practice for bridge. Having said that, if you enjoy it, good luck practicing.

[Vampyr]

pilowsky, on 2020-June-11, 06:48, said:

We all get to play the same set of hands.

Yes, it’s called duplicate bridge. What other form would one play?

Quote

It's a shame we don't all try.

I may try it, but I expect that I will score poorly because I don’t know how to protect myself from the robots. And since I don’t think that that is a valid bridge skill, I will not be practicing to try to learn it.

[nudnikbp]

1NT is okay, but bid 2D in response to the Stayman 2C. That should be automatic.

[johnu]

Nice attempt to retaliate against GIB for making crazy awful bids by giving it some of its own medicine. If everybody would make those kinds of bids against GIB I'm sure it would learn a lesson and improve its bidding.

[moysian]

I played yesterday in a daylong (vs. robots). In 4th seat, I held 7 solid clubs and a side King of diamonds, and reflexively opened 3NT. My bot partner raised to 7NT, and laid down 7 top spades.

Why the bot passed at its first opportunity is another mystery, but when I checked my bot convention card, I realized that the 3N opener showed 25-27 HCP. (I think 2 clubs - 2 Diamonds - 3 NT shows the same thing, so why not play Gambling?)

Anyhow, the bot cashed the diamond Ace at trick one, and I was momentarily hopeful of going off 1. But, the heart suit was discovered at trick 2. I then embarked on a successful campaign to lose every trick on the hand, for a -3500! Ahhh, the beauty of matchpoints!

[Vampyr]

moysian, on 2020-June-12, 06:21, said:

I played yesterday in a daylong (vs. robots). In 4th seat, I held 7 solid clubs and a side King of diamonds, and reflexively opened 3NT.

Even with a partner who plays Gambling 3NT, I don’t think your opening will be well-received. In 4th seat a Gambling 3NT is made with the expectation of making it. How is your passed-hand partner supposed to provide three more tricks without losing control of a suit? You have to exp ct to make three tricks with partner’s random bits and pieces.

In other seats the side K will usually not be permitted, but of course your partnership agreement might be different, and in third the preemptive value is probably more important.

[bluenikki]

pilowsky, on 2020-June-11, 02:29, said:

Here's a hand that just came up in a Daylong.

---

Here is the link to my result. Here is the double-dummy.
I think this is interesting because in third seat I took a chance with my nice diamond suit (and low HCP) and opened 1NT. I was hoping that if partner responds Stayman this likely indicates stoppers in the other three suits. I already know from practice that after a rebid of 3NT GIB will pass. Also, advanced robots make passive leads into NT contracts (almost always).
If partner passes I should make 1NT.
If EW interferes, I'm still good - I even have a 2♦ rebid.
So, in summary, even though GIB doesn't play G3NT - this seems to be an effective workaround.

I don't get it. If you avoid a club lead, you still have only 8 tricks. With a 7th diamond, though...

[dsLawsd]

moysian, on 2020-June-12, 06:21, said:

I played yesterday in a daylong (vs. robots). In 4th seat, I held 7 solid clubs and a side King of diamonds, and reflexively opened 3NT. My bot partner raised to 7NT, and laid down 7 top spades.

Why the bot passed at its first opportunity is another mystery, but when I checked my bot convention card, I realized that the 3N opener showed 25-27 HCP. (I think 2 clubs - 2 Diamonds - 3 NT shows the same thing, so why not play Gambling?)

Anyhow, the bot cashed the diamond Ace at trick one, and I was momentarily hopeful of going off 1. But, the heart suit was discovered at trick 2. I then embarked on a successful campaign to lose every trick on the hand, for a -3500! Ahhh, the beauty of matchpoints!

Just a zero not $. GIB never seems to bid those strong suits well.

[dsLawsd]

A flyer is just that. But consider that robot might have a Smolen hand where you might land in a 5-3 fit. And your terrific declarer play might give you a real high board at best and average + at worst.

[DarylK]

Tramticket, on 2020-June-11, 05:05, said:

In addition to promising a solid seven or eight-card suit, a gambling 3NT (as generally played) denies aces and kings in side suits, with the expectation that partner will pull to 4m without all three suits stops.

Plus partner must also pull if void in the minor!

[pilowsky]

And then, as if by a miracle - so to speak - this hand came up today. My untrustworthy friend the North robot opens 3♣ with this hand.
nobody is vulnerable.

---

I have

---

Here is the full deal Interestingly - to me anyway, top board was 6♣ Here is the Traveller. But if GIB wanted to be really mean it could've found 6♠X which not vulnerable for +500 would be the best result for EW.
As you can imagine, I was delighted with the standard passive lead of the ♣5, but I only made 3NT+3. 2 people made 3N+4, and 13 people chose 6♣, but 4 went off 1.
If you imagine that the 3♣ is an upside-down Gambling 3NT (and I know that I'm asking a lot here) then the response of 3NT does make sense. I do understand that the OP is rather different - in that case when the robot bids Stayman I am taking the risk (gamble) that my partner will have additional strength elsewhere. This situation is clearly different. I am taking the risk that all of North's strength is in the ♣ suit. In retrospect, when I look at my hand again, perhaps it is less surprising.
My sense is that GIB preempts tend to be 'heavy', but that may be an illusion. When I ran this North hand through a KR hand evaluator the answer was 10.05, but only 6 using the HCP method. What do others think?

[DavidKok]

At nobody vulnerable first hand I play 3♣ as rather wide-ranged, and this hand solidly falls into the range. What else are you going to bid? With that South hand I'd think of 5♣ before 3NT, you have excellent support, 4 losers in total and shortness in a major suit.

Regarding the first remark, I'm reminded of an except from "Building a Bidding System" by Roy Hughes. He gives the hand

---

and then writes:

Quote

It was too weak for 1♣ or 2♣, too strong for 3♣, 4♣ showed hearts, and 5♣ seemed a bit much. So he passed, hoping things would get better. Left-hand opponent also passed. Partner opened 1♠, and RHO passed. Now what? Now 2♣ was Drury, 3♣ fit-showing, 4♣ a splinter and 5♣ still seemed too much. In desperation, he bid 2♦ — and everyone passed!

In modern bidding systems there is a very real risk of not being able to show your robot partner's hand if you do not bid it at once.

[nige1]

DavidKok, on 2020-June-13, 04:28, said:

In modern bidding systems there is a very real risk of not being able to show your robot partner's hand if you do not bid it at once. I'm reminded of an except from "Building a Bidding System" by Roy Hughes. He gives the hand

---

Roy Hughes said:

It was too weak for 1♣ or 2♣, too strong for 3♣, 4♣ showed hearts, and 5♣ seemed a bit much. So he passed, hoping things would get better. Left-hand opponent also passed. Partner opened 1♠, and RHO passed. Now what? Now 2♣ was Drury, 3♣ fit-showing, 4♣ a splinter and 5♣ still seemed too much. In desperation, he bid 2♦ — and everyone passed!

"Pre-empts work". And DavidKok makes an excellent point. Especially if your system is 2/1 with 3 weak-twos. Hence, after partner opens one of a major in 3rd or 4th seat, John Matheson and I agree to play ...

• 2♣ = NAT. Might even have opened a weak-two in clubs, had that been available.
• 2♦ = ART. Drury-like good major raise.

[PhilG007]

I'm a creature of moods concerning the Gambling 3NT At favourable vulnerability I prefer to bid 5 of the minor suit
as its much more obstructive. At Game All I would use it as the minor suit makes for a good escape route if I'm doubled

[pilowsky]

Moody! I like that. Jeff Tang talks about aggressive, moderate and conservative versions of gambling 3NT on Bridgebum. If I don't have enough points and still make the contract would that be a silly 3NT? Or just pointless...

[PeterAlan]

bluenikki, on 2020-June-12, 09:14, said:

I don't get it. If you avoid a club lead, you still have only 8 tricks. With a 7th diamond, though...

Since ♥K is onside, you have 1♠, 2♥s and 6♦s.