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

Re: Leading the R on defense - Just say no!

Expand Messages
  • gdi_learn_2_fckn_play
    First post of 2004, wooohoooo. And Ace you are doing such a nice job on all the points here I am not clouding the issue with my sometimes hard to follow and
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      First post of 2004, wooohoooo.


      And Ace you are doing such a nice job on all the points here I am
      not clouding the issue with my sometimes hard to follow and often
      misunderstood posts. You are doing a great job and I agree with
      you 100% on this current issue that we are debating.


      =)


      Ed


      --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "disappearingace"
      <getevenone@h...> wrote:
      > --- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "bimbert84" <bimbert84@y...>
      > wrote:
      > Rob Says:
      > "Now, presumably you're leading the R to enable your aces. This
      > succeeds in its goal only if you manage to drain one or both opps
      of
      > trump. As I said before, however, it's more than an 80% likelihood
      > dealer will have a trump before the order; after the order he'll
      have
      > two (or more). In other words, 80% of the time leading the R fails
      > in its mission. 80%! That's a lot. But not only does it fail to
      > enable your aces, it virtually ensures their point."
      >
      > I say:
      > If the dealer has 2 trump by vurtue of the deal and 2nd seat has
      made
      > a good call, (LA + Ak + x, or 3 trump+ A + x as you indicated you
      > would expect) there really is no way that you will euchre them
      even
      > with Right and 2 aces in 1st seats hand and a trump in 3rd seat,
      > regardless of what 1st seat leads. Although at first glance, one
      > might see many possibilities for a euchre with many hands during
      any
      > game played, the fact is that a good trump making team should and
      > will score their point or points when they make trump, factoring
      out
      > strategic close calls and donates, with score being a factor in a
      > decision to make a close call. The score has not even been
      discussed
      > as it relates to the hands in question and maybe that is why we
      both
      > jumped on the expectations of different holdings in seat 2's
      hand.
      >
      > In the situation being discussed, should you lead for your partner
      to
      > win the first trick by virtue of his trumping in, when the opps
      are
      > strong in trump, and he wins the trick, the opps will kill you
      with
      > the remaining tricks by finessing around seat 1 with the trump
      they
      > collectively hold, to get the point. If, as in this case, 1st seat
      > has the aces to possibly match his opponents off suit, surely his
      > team has a better chance to take tricks with them if, seat 2
      ordered
      > thin and after 1st trick, there is no or few trump at the table,
      so,
      > if he is to catch the opps thin to win the point, he should lead
      the
      > Right. If the dealer has 2 trump, euchre probably wasn't in the
      cards
      > anyways.
      >
      > Now,in reply to your mentioned 80% , if we assume that
      approximately
      > 80% of all attempts at euchre fail against good players, the trump
      > lead or any other lead is going to fail 80% of the time anyway, in
      > this situation. The thought you raise in my mind when you mention
      the
      > Right lead will fail 80% of the time is why do you not tell us
      what %
      > of the time any other lead will fail, particularly the % of the
      lead
      > you support.
      >
      > I must admit that because of my inexperience in working with
      > probability equations, it makes it difficult and extremely tedius,
      > for me, to provide adequate detail which I feel could help reach a
      > clearer picture. This difficulty is compounded by the numerous
      > questions that are raised and suggestions that are made during
      > discussion and also time constraints, but, allow me. Without a
      > comparison % to the 80% figure that you quote, 80% is neither big
      nor
      > small as it relates to a strategic point, and it does not fairly
      > indicate strength or weakness or actually support your attempt to
      > justify an action. Could it be that your position would fail 90%
      of
      > the time? :)
      > - - - - - - - - -
      >
      > Rob Says:
      > "Now what about QT9 + AK? If I were playing this hand, my first and
      > foremost goal would be to lead trump to draw out the big boys. By
      > leading the R, you're doing me a huge favor -- it guarantees my
      > point, as there is no way I can be euchred."
      >
      > Me says:
      > You're not very clear here, but, given what we know 1st seat has,
      > show me which and how any lead will beat that if 3rd seat has one
      > trump and dealer has one trump. Unless i'm mistaken, and I confess
      to
      > only thnking a couple of minutes, there is no way.
      > - - - - - - - -
      >
      > Rob Says:
      > "FWIW, I played a very similar hand this morning. I was in 1st, and
      > 2nd ordered. I held the R and an off-A. I led the off-A, which
      > skated. My P later cashed his lone L, and we scored the euchre. Had
      > I led the R, that never would've been possible."
      >
      > Me Says:
      > Luck of the cards, eh? From the information you provided, I
      certainly
      > would not lead my right in that situation. In fact, I probably
      > wouldn't have led my ace either. I may have tried to utilize a
      trump
      > from my partner by leading low because I do need help to have any
      > reasonable chance at euchre. Aces have a tendency not to skate on
      > the first trick and I would hold it as "my ace in the hole." I
      hate
      > leading aces when the opps make, unless I have 2. Maybe I'm wrong?
      I
      > really dunno!
      >
      > Ace- -
      >
      > Looooooong PS:
      > Where is everybody? 116 members? ...and nobody else is willing
      to
      > offer any input into this questionable play or any other discussed
      in
      > this group? I sense that most are afraid to add 2 cents worth to
      this
      > board and be tagged as wrong. So what if you are! What benefit is
      it
      > to not ever knowing you are wrong? Say, what you think, or know.
      > Maybe it will lead to clearing up misconceptions! Heck, the masses
      > know how wrong I can be, but provocation of a discussion at least
      > could lead to a better understanding for all. This isn't the
      Rob/Ace
      > show.Let us know you are alive. You are, aren't you? How about a
      > rowcall? Post in the next couple of days, with in the least, a
      hello
      > to let us know your alive? I'm beginning to think that all but
      about
      > 9 of the members listed on the home page are deceased. What's on
      your
      > mind as it relates to euchre? If I send you all a kiss in an
      email,
      > would you be so kind as to not boot me when I come onto your table
      > with my 1455 rated nic? Step up to the microphone please. Natty
      needs
      > better material for his column and Ed could sure use some optional
      > situations. Let's get discussing! We miss you, friends! Write the
      > group a letter, heck, even if you only want money. (no money for
      you
      > though, cr0tia.)
    • Natty Bumppo
      Just keep givin em BOTH hell, bimbert84 ! If you get tired, call in the cavalry. You might even be able to call up Ryan Romanik from the Reserves.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Just keep givin' 'em BOTH hell,
        "bimbert84"!

        If you get tired, call in the
        cavalry. You might even be able
        to call up Ryan Romanik from the
        Reserves.

        "gdi_learn_2_fckn_play" wrote:

        > . . . Ace you are doing such a
        > nice job on all the points here
        > I am not clouding the issue ....
      • bimbert84
        Hi Natty, ... I m working on it. But these are some thick skulls, ya know (mine included). ;) -- Rob
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Natty,

          > Just keep givin' 'em BOTH hell,
          > "bimbert84"!

          I'm working on it. But these are some thick skulls, ya know (mine
          included). ;)

          -- Rob
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.