[kereru67]

In case you don't know a "Gambling 3NT", a traditional part of Acol and other bidding systems, involves opening 3nt with a solid 7 card minor (preferably AKQJxxx, AKQxxxx is riskier) and almost nothing outside. The hope is that partner can cover the other suits, allowing 3NT to make with considerably less than the usual 25-26 points; otherwise they can just bid 4♣ which you either pass or correct to 4♦.

In my opinion this is a very silly convention. It's possible that with a 7 card minor that's going to run, 3NT will end up being the best contract, but if that's the case you want your partner to be playing it, not you; that way the lead comes up to partner's hand. If you open 3nt and end up playing it, opponents who know what they're doing will lead an ace to get a look at dummy, identify dummy's weak suit (the one where partner has an A sitting over their K or Q), and lead through it. Just open 3 of your minor and hope partner can bid 3NT (or 5 or 6 of your minor), or maybe have some partnership agreement to show this specific type of hand without bidding NT yourself. As for what to do with a 3NT opening, maybe just make it 25-26 hcp balanced. With such a space consuming bid, you want the definition to be quite narrow and specific.

[mike777]

Or preemptive long major
Then you can add asking bids or whatever over it.
See Martel-Fleisher or others

[awm]

I recall playing in an ACBL nationals and coming up against two expert opponents who were not a regular partnership. They opened a gambling 3NT and wound up with a poor result. Discussing after the hand, they determined that they both thought this was a terrible convention, and that it had only made its way onto the card because they merged their cards with a common partner (who, one supposes, liked the convention). They crossed it off their card for the future rounds!

Anyway, I agree that this is not a very good use for 3NT. However, I wouldn't open 3m on these hands -- they are too strong and partner will never play me for a solid suit. My strategy instead would be to open 1m. I agree with Mike777 that "good 4M preempt" is a good meaning; there are also some weak two-suited meanings that could work (Elianna and I play it as 6♥-5m weak).

[blackshoe]

Kantar 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if you dont have any other use for the bid, gambling is ok.
Peoble like to preempt with broken 6 card minor suits, ..., this makes it hard to find 3NT after
a minor suit preempt in 1st / 2nd position.

In short, it is easy to rant against a specific usage, but quite often the bid works in a context,
and the context may mean, that the bid is useful, or plugs a hole.

Anyway, Fred Gitleman, BBO founder, suggested using 3NT as 65 majors, ..., one reason he invented
this was his dislike of the Gambling 3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

IMO it is a very poor use for 3NT:
- it is extremely low frequency (once or twice a year if closely defined with at most a side Q)
- it is high memory load (if you and partner ever memorized the full developments in the first place)
- it wrongsides the contract, exposing tenaces and stops that otherwise had some chance.

I prefer to use 3NT as a Namyats like opening or in alternative as both minors (65 majors is a happy problem).

[mw64ahw]

Better to play 3♠ as the Gambling NT.

Then filling out as you wish, for example
4♣ to 4♠ Namyats
3N minor suit preempt/Kantar 3N/Kabel 3N
3♥ 55xx preempt
3♦ Major suit preempt
3♣ xx55 preempt
2N minor suit preempt

[DavidKok]

A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid.

[jillybean]

---

fred, on 2025-June-22, 15:28, said:

I like to play a 3NT opening shows a hand like this (a preempt with at least 6-5 in the majors - obviously, as with all preempts, the vulnerability matters).

I invented (or, more likely, unknowingly reinvented) this convention about 25 years ago.

Doesn't come up very often of course, but it seemed to work better than any of the alternatives for 3NT openings that I have tried over the years. Admittedly it is hard to be objective about such things and I certainly have not made any real effort to keep track of the results.

You need to play reasonable methods over this for it to be workable. If anyone is interested, I will post what we came up with. I might not be able to do so immediately as I am in the middle of playing in a serious tournament.

It is a fun convention to play which, for me at least, is a nice plus