The thing with bridge is that, like poker, the game itself is unbiased. There is often an element of probability, but stronger players will tend to play lines that are more likely to succeed, so over time they have a better average performance.
It’s also true in both games that as you improve you develop a deeper understanding to the point where you’re almost playing a different game. Where a beginner might be happy to play 100% lines, an improving player will consider the cards they can see but also what might be happening with the others and they will play lines that get better results on average by looking at the probabilities. A good player will see a bigger picture still, not only considering a priori possibilities for the hidden cards but also drawing inferences from what every other player does or doesn’t do and what each player would have known at the time.
That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success than an intermediate player’s calculations would suggest. At this level, both games also have an element of not just playing your own cards well but also painting a credible but incorrect picture for one or more opponents to trick them into doing something that helps you. That certainly does need an excellent understanding of the probabilities, but the final result is mostly due to the skill of the players in setting the trap and then either avoiding or falling into it.
> That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success
One thing I like about poker is that winning in the long run is not about improving your probability of success, it's about improving the expected profits. So you could actually start winning more by playing lower-probability hands, as long as when you win them, your profits are much greater.
This is one of the peculiar life lessons of Poker that I haven't seen many other places.
Is bridge like that or is it purely about probabilities?
Yes, that’s a big element in bridge as well. Both phases of the game are built around a combination of smaller/incremental scores combined with key thresholds where you get big bonuses if you try to reach them and make it but there is also a high cost if you over-reach and miss.
Depending on the tactical situation and the precise form of scoring, making it to a key threshold or preventing your opponents from doing so could be the only thing that really matters. You’ll gladly sacrifice a smaller ± score even with a high probability of winning a few extra points from it in order to achieve your main objective more reliably. However, in other tactical situations or forms of scoring, whether or not a side reaches a key threshold is mostly irrelevant and the relatively small variations add up to make all the difference over time.
It’s also true in both games that as you improve you develop a deeper understanding to the point where you’re almost playing a different game. Where a beginner might be happy to play 100% lines, an improving player will consider the cards they can see but also what might be happening with the others and they will play lines that get better results on average by looking at the probabilities. A good player will see a bigger picture still, not only considering a priori possibilities for the hidden cards but also drawing inferences from what every other player does or doesn’t do and what each player would have known at the time.
That means a lot of “lucky” decisions that good players make actually had a much higher probability of success than an intermediate player’s calculations would suggest. At this level, both games also have an element of not just playing your own cards well but also painting a credible but incorrect picture for one or more opponents to trick them into doing something that helps you. That certainly does need an excellent understanding of the probabilities, but the final result is mostly due to the skill of the players in setting the trap and then either avoiding or falling into it.