Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Dumb and dumber

Expand Messages
  • dwend_98
    I didn t mean to imply that the dealer couldn t or shouldn t have gone alone with that hand; only that Ron should have assumed he had the right and taken the
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I didn't mean to imply that the dealer couldn't or shouldn't have
      gone alone with that hand; only that Ron should have assumed he had
      the right and taken the first trick to stop the loner. I will add
      that my response was largely based on the score given (5-4), and the
      rules my group plays under, which is: no matter who orders trump,
      dealer has otion of playing alone. I have been playing that way for
      5-6 years, and that influenced my response with reference to the
      dealers partner passing.
      If I were dealer, I would not have gone alone with the hand
      presented, but that is not what this scenario was about. It was
      about whether Ron's partner should shoot Ron or not, and I say "shoot
      him". I am not a college professor, nor a statistician. But I've
      been playing for some 45 years, and somewhere deep inside are the
      probability factorss and percentages (without necessarily recognizing
      them as such or being able to recall them as a specific number), as
      well as a bit of experience and intuition. My internal
      probability 'experience' says that dealer's chances of making that
      loner were very very slim, and at or near equal to his chances of
      getting set. And, at a score of 5-4, he should have taken his
      partner with him. On the other hand, if the score were a wider
      margin, such as 6-3 or less, or 7-4 or less, going alone would
      probably have been worth the risk. At that point, getting set still
      leaves dealer's side with score advantage. Forgive me, but I don't
      agree that to not play this hand as a loner is timidity. It is just
      not extreme agressiveness. I believe in being agressive, but not
      ignorant. A loner with the hand and score as presented, in my
      opinion is more ignorant than agressive, and Ron's pass on first
      trick pitted one ignoramous against the other. In this case, Dealer
      wins, but I would still rather play against such a player than as his
      partner. Because he got lucky and made the loner is more because of
      Ron's play than dealers, and does not strengthen my faith that he
      knows what he is doing. I should add here, that if I were a drinker,
      I might have gone alone, depending on how early (or late) in the
      evening it was. But, I am not a drinker, so my inhibitions say "keep
      your partner" on this one and increase the score margin with 1-2
      points. I don't think that is being timid....but, Debatable, I guess.

      With regards to your reference to The Columbus Book of Euchre, pgs 44-
      46, I agree with you to a point. However, my reasoning for this not
      being one of those points is based on the score of 5-4, and my
      assumed probability for success, which I believe is extremely low.
      The only scenario I believe this would fall under is on page 47, the
      Lone Bluff, which I do frequently, but not with that score and while
      sober (for me that means less than 5 cups of coffee), for the
      internal fear that my partner will shoot me instead of Ron's partner
      shooting him. If the score were 1-9, then go for it. You have
      nothing to lose.

      In the future, I'll try to remember that normal rules do not allow
      dealer to go alone if ordered up. Sorry for that "brain fart". It
      happens so often, I guess it is becoming habitual.


      --- In EuchreScience@y..., Borf Books <borf@b...> wrote:
      > Only one flaw in your excellent reasoning, Dwend. You wrote:
      > > . . . Ron . . . should have assumed dealer had the right back
      when he
      > > called the loner. Otherwise, the best dealer could have had is
      > > King, 10, & 9, and an off ace. Certainly not enough to go alone
      > > with his partner passing. . . .
      > This is timidity of the type voiced by Tom Gallagher and Joe
      > It's more than plenty to go alone on. See pages 44-46 of the
      > Book of Euchre, which include several scenarios in which to go
      alone on
      > marginal holdings (even with a lone king of trump, which I have
      > sucessfully, more than once). It takes special circumstances in
      > position, score and configuration. One important element is to have
      > a pretty sure point even if you don't sweep.
      > An intelligent partner, sitting opposite the dealer, should sit on a
      > marginally good hand -- even a hand with a bower -- for the very
      > purpose of preserving his partner's opportunity to go alone. This
      > is the strategy behind the Canadian rule that requires the dealer's
      > partner to go alone if he orders up at all.
      > It is the strategy also behind my own double-edged precept (1) never
      > to order a bower to your partner (unless you are going alone
      > and (2) never to turn down a bower unless you have all three other
      > stopped.
      > Natty Bumppo, author, The Columbus Book of
      > http://borf_books.tripod.com/borfeuch.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.