## A hand similar to Chris's

Expand Messages
• ... Me, too. The only time I call trump with that hand is when my opponents have 9 points. And then I call diamonds, and lead it -- I thought. It s next.
Message 1 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
"wdfover50" wrote:

> What I did was pass. I decided
> my hand was a defensive hand
> with a possible two points if the
> opponents called black. . . .

Me, too. The only time I call trump
with that hand is when my opponents
have 9 points.

And then I call diamonds, and lead
it -- I thought. It's "next." But
just to make sure, I gave it Ron
Brown's patented 15-hand whirl
through the Euchre Laboratory.
For control, I played each hand
twice -- once in diamonds, leading
the right bower and following with the jack of spades; then in clubs,
leading the 10 (I did not play it a third way, leading the jack of
diamonds on a club call, as Ron conluded was best. See message No.
3846).

OK, clubs! Two points twice, 1 point six times, euchred seven times;
net, minus 4; average, minus 1/4 (Ron got a net of plus 1, for an
average of plus 1/15. Both our results are within the same
statistical ballpark for a sample of only 15 hands).

With diamonds called it was two points twice, 1 point twice, euchred
eleven times; net, minus 16; average, minus 1 (I tend to forget that
"next" is primarily a defenseive call!).

Calling trump here looks like a net loser either way, except for Ron
Brown's 1/2 point per hand gain calling clubs and leading the diamond
loser -- but you have to reanalyze the results when you are calling
trump against opponents who have 9 points:

When your opponents have 9 points (and you are not playing for point
totals or money on points), a euchre is, effectively, only minus 1,
not minus 2. Looked at that way, clubs (as I played it) gives us a
net of plus 1, for an average of 1/20 of a point per hand (and
diamonds gives us minus 7, for an average of minus 1/2).

And such a reanalysis of Ron Brown's results gives us a net of plus 6
in clubs leading low trump, for an average of 2/5 of a point per hand;
and his diamond lead in clubs gives us a net of plus 10, for an
average of 2/3 of a point per hand. It's still not a great call, but
calling clubs saves the day against 9 points a little better than half
the time by these results.

But HERE is the AMAZING result of my little experiment (and one thing
that made it take so long, even playing only 15 hands times two): I
had to deal 71 hands to get 15 to play -- because on 52 of those
deals, the dealer or his partner, playing aggressively and heads up,
would have picked or ordered up the heart; and on four of those deals,

What?! You can say that Gerry Blue's Euchre Laboratory -- as they say
of Yahoo! -- does not deal randomly (and I hope someone DOES say that!
I just LOVE that dumb argument; and if any programmer is nice enough
to take such insult without great offense, it's Gerry Blue).

But that's not it; and, after reflection, I am not surprised. You're
sitting there with a pretty sorry hand, over all and without knowing
what trump is going to be. The other five hearts, and the aces, and
the other three kings are SOMEWHERE. Only if the bulk of the power is
in the pack -- a 4 out of 19 shot -- is someone else unlikely to
order. And that's just about the way it works out: Four out of 19 is
21.1 per cent. Fifteen hands to play out of 71 dealt is 21.1 per
cent.

wdfover50's scenario:

> Score, 0-0. I was in first chair. Up card was 9 of hearts. I
> held jack of diamonds, 9 and 10 of clubs, jack and king of spades.
> Everyone passed first time around. . . .
• Excellent question Rob, and all I can say is: I don t know . I went back(to euchre lab)and tried 2 more 15 hand scenarios. the 1st was a gain of +5 for
Message 2 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
Excellent question Rob, and all I can say is: "I don't know". I went back(to euchre lab)and tried 2 more 15 hand scenarios. the 1st was a gain of +5 for leading away, and +1 for leading trump; the 2nd was +2 leading away and 0 leading trump. I tried to look for a definitive reason as to why and I couldn't find 1, as it was different in each hand
So I invite all the " 'euchre science' savvy" members, if they agree to the importance, try to explain to those of us who would like to know. I also understand that 1 can, without meaning to, get the results they want, so please use lab without prejudice
It seems to me that this is a very important question for 2 reasons: 1- This "situation" comes up a lot; 2- is "make trump/lead trump!" always the way 2 go?
bimbert84 <bimbert84@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,

> so it would seem that calling clubs and leading
> off trump might be the call?

Interesting experiment.

What was the primary factor in leading away being more successful

-- Rob

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

• Hi Natty, ... Absolutely correct. On average, your team can be expected to take 2.5 tricks out of 5. All you need is that slight edge to give you the extra
Message 3 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
Hi Natty,

> > Score, 0-0. 1st chair. Up card was 9h.
> > I held Jd 9Tc JKs. Everyone passed first
> > time around. . . .
>
> When your opponents have 9 points..., a euchre is,
> effectively, only minus 1, not minus 2.

Absolutely correct. On average, your team can be expected to take
2.5 tricks out of 5. All you need is that slight edge to give you
the extra half trick.

At 9-9, it does not matter WHO calls trump, only what IS trump. In
this case, you have the opportunity to name the suit most
advantageous to you. There's no good reason to pass up this
opportunity, espcially when every other suit is less advantageous.

> Calling trump here looks like a net loser either way

Or if it is advantageous, minimally so. But we've not discussed the
potential for an opposing score if you pass. The advantage of them
not scoring (or marching or lonering) must be factored in. Even if
naming trump nets -1/4 point, it's worth doing if passing nets -1/2,
for example.

Every call has both offensive and defensive potential. For me, this
consideration tips the scales in favor of calling clubs with this
hand.

-- Rob
• Hi Ron, ... Well, based on your results it appears not.... I originally favored calling clubs, which I still do, and then leading 9c, which I m no longer
Message 4 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
Hi Ron,

> is "make trump/lead trump!" always the way 2 go?

Well, based on your results it appears not....

I originally favored calling clubs, which I still do, and then

-- Rob
• Yes, this situation does come up a lot and I always seem to be at a loss as to how to play it. This discussion has greatly helped me because now I won t be
Message 5 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
Yes, this situation does come up a lot and I always seem to be at a loss as to
how to play it. This discussion has greatly helped me because now I won't be
just taking a shot in the dark. Natty and I both agreed we'd pass with the
score at 0-0. But with the opponents at 9, clubs appears to be the best call
with a diamond lead. I hope this hand comes up again soon so I can give it a
try. At least now I'll know what will be the best play.

Thanks so much.

--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, Ron Brown <ahimsa1999@y...>
wrote:
> Excellent question Rob, and all I can say is: "I don't know". I went back(to
euchre lab)and tried 2 more 15 hand scenarios. the 1st was a gain of +5 for
leading trump. I tried to look for a definitive reason as to why and I couldn't
find 1, as it was different in each hand
> So I invite all the " 'euchre science' savvy" members, if they agree to the
importance, try to explain to those of us who would like to know. I also
understand that 1 can, without meaning to, get the results they want, so
> It seems to me that this is a very important question for 2 reasons: 1- This
"situation" comes up a lot; 2- is "make trump/lead trump!" always the way 2
go?
> bimbert84 <bimbert84@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > so it would seem that calling clubs and leading
> > off trump might be the call?
>
> Interesting experiment.
>
> What was the primary factor in leading away being more successful
> than leading trump? Helpful trump in P's hand? Opportunity for you
> to score an additional trick?
>
> -- Rob
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EuchreScience/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> EuchreScience-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
• Hi Ace, ... Good point. ... If the odds are in your favor to score in clubs, there is no reason to pass clubs. ... Hmmm, I m not sure I m buying that. Spades
Message 6 of 24 , Feb 1, 2004
Hi Ace,

> The hand seat 1 holds, Jd-JKs-9Tc, pretty well has
> the stopper which avoids a march on any call by the
> opps.

Good point.

> Why call clubs from 1st at 0-0 ? The opps aren't going
> to march 2 points with any call and the odds to score
> are in your favour if they make clubs.

If the odds are in your favor to score in clubs, there is no reason
to pass clubs.

> It appears that even a spades call by the opps could
> easily be euchred by your team.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that. Spades gives you one trick,
maybe a second if you're lucky.

> If the opps are on 9, would you expect 2nd seat to
> make diamonds trump, if you passed a second time?

I'd say it depends how many points MY TEAM has. I won't necessarily
call thin when WE have 9, but I will when the OPPS have 9.

> @ 0-0, I'm prepared to pass this and sacrafice a stinky early game
> point. Who knows, I might even end up being called a bagger.

This is a judgement call for sure, but if analysis shows calling
clubs yields a 1/4 point gain on average, then in the long-run (which
is essentially defined as 0-0), clubs is the right call.

-- Rob
• Hi Ace, ... I think you must ve meant something different when you said the odds to score are in your favour if they make clubs. The odds to score do not
Message 7 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
Hi Ace,

> > > the odds to score are in your favour if
> > > they make clubs.
> >
> > If the odds are in your favor to score in clubs,
> > there is no reason to pass clubs.
>
> I don't see the odds at this time as favourable
> considering the consequences.

I think you must've meant something different when you said "the odds
to score are in your favour if they make clubs."

The odds to score do not change, the weighted average of the result
does. I think this is what you're talking about. In other words,
given the same odds to take 3 tricks in clubs, it's better if you do
it on their call. I'll buy that.

> A trump call by your partner seems to be the best
> route to a march at the table. ...maybe a diamond loner?

Maybe. But I've always been a fan of playing the cards I DO have,
instead of trying to play the cards my P MAY have.

> > > It appears that even a spades call by the opps could
> > > easily be euchred by your team.
> >
> > Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that. Spades gives you one trick,
> > maybe a second if you're lucky.
>
> 2nd follows suit, partner trumps, dealer plays his diamond.

LOL! Now you're counting on a trump trick from your P, in nearly the
same situation you spent many, many posts trying to convince me he's
so unlikely to take it's not worth considering. Now you tell me it
happens all the time.

Gotcha! ;)

> This hand can be tougher for the opps to score a point
> if they make trump, than it could be for me to avoid
> euchre, if I make trump.

nonsensical. If you make trump, it'll be in your strongest suit.
How could it possibly be tougher for you to take 3 tricks in your
strongest suit, than in any other suit?

> > This is a judgement call for sure, but if analysis
> > shows calling clubs yields a 1/4 point gain on average,
> > then in the long-run (which is essentially defined
> > as 0-0), clubs is the right call.
>
> But does it show a 1/4 point gain?

We don't know. There's not enough data one way or the other, but the
data we do have suggests a tossup, and that's all I'm claiming.

-- Rob
• Hi Ace, ... Let me rephrase that: I ve always been a fan of naming (or not naming) trump based on the cards I DO have, instead of guessing at something my P
Message 8 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
Hi Ace,

> > Maybe. But I've always been a fan of playing the
> > cards I DO have, instead of trying to play the cards
> > my P MAY have.

Let me rephrase that: I've always been a fan of naming (or not
naming) trump based on the cards I DO have, instead of guessing at
something my P MAY have.

> Your statement smacks the theory, "Never order the
> right bower to your partner unless you are going alone"
> right in the face. Do you subscribe in principle to that?

Indeed it does smack it in the face. And no, I do not subscribe to
that principle. If I hold three trump including L (or maybe even A),
I'll order that R, and if my hand's not strong enough to go alone, I
won't.

> If so, is that action not an action similar to passing
> this opportunity to make a weak club call in
> favour of a potential better call by your partner?

It's not even remotely similar. Why? Because with a R turnup and me
in 2nd, 3rd must order the J or pass. He cannot call away from my
hand.

In the LT9c case, if 2nd chair calls diamonds (after all, since you
have black, he is more likely to have red), you'll be left with one
and only one trick.

> Passing here on clubs, to defer to a potential better
> call by your partner and the above 2 mentioned actions
> are all what I consider trying to play the cards my
> partner may have.

What better call do you expect? If he plans to go black, he'll
likely have the Jc, in which case your club call is good. If he
plans to go diamonds, he'll likely hold Ad and/or another off A,
which will be of help if you name clubs. About the only time you'll
really be in trouble with clubs is if your P has garbage, in which
case he'd have passed anyway.

> > > Not buying that? Happens all the time. You lead
> > > Jd, 2nd follows suit, partner trumps, dealer plays
> > > his diamond.
> >
> > LOL! Now you're counting on a trump trick from your P,
> > in nearly the same situation you spent many, many posts
> > trying to convince me he's so unlikely to take it's not
> > worth considering. Now you tell me it happens all the
> > time.
>
> NOT! Not even close to the same situations! The situation
> you refer to, which I "gotcha" with in the above reply,
> had aces in 1st seats hand, and was an order. Without aces
> here, the road to euchre would have to be driven a different
> route.

earlier assessment (in the other thread) that 3rd's potential to
score a trump is insignificant. Now you say it happens all the
time. Note that the presence of off-aces in 1st chair has absolutely
nothing to do with the likelihood of 3rd holding and/or using a trump.

> It might be the strongest suit for you, and not strong
> at all I'll add, but is a club call the strongest for

Obviously there is no way to know this, nor is there ever.

> A thin call by the opps in a suit other than your trump
> preference *AND A COUPLE* of key cards in your partners hand
> *COUPLED WITH 2 POTENTIAL* right bowers in your hand *COULD*
> wallop the opps in the butt.

The emphasis is mine. Note that to score in clubs, you really only
need 1 key card in your P's hand.

> > the data we do have suggests a tossup, and
> > that's all I'm claiming.
>
> Toss up? No way! At 0-0, I wouldn't excuse my partner
> for making a ridiculous call of desperation.

Hmmm. Ron's experiment shows the club call to be a small winner.
Natty's shows it be a small loser (although Natty admittedly did not
try Ron's strategy of leading away from trump). Based on these
results, I would hardly characterize either passing or calling as "a
ridiculous call of desperation."

-- Rob
• This dialogue is getting quite wordy. What disappearingace is saying, in so many words (I think), is that in the long run you will make more points on the
Message 9 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
This dialogue is getting quite wordy.
What "disappearingace" is saying, in
so many words (I think), is that in
the long run you will make more
points on the hand under discussion
by passing it than by calling it. I
agree. As I said, the only time I
would call it is when the opponents
have 9 points.

Thomas A. Gallagher wrote in his
book "Winning at Euchre . . . ":

"Euchre is a bidder's game. You
must bid at every opportunity. . . .
Just to sit back and pass or hope to
euchre your opponents is a loser's
game. You must bid to win."

I agree with the theme, and specifically with the first, third and
fourth sentences, of that passage. I disagree with the second
sentence (and, surely, it was hyperbole; surely he was exaggerating
there).

To paraphrase the instigator of the present dialogue, Patricia M.
White-Divorced-Female-Over-50, a player who passes once in a while can
be a formidable opponent.

In some arenas there is not enough passing.

We all encounter players who boast, "I'm aggressive." Well, that's
good. But you don't need to be so aggressive that you stick your neck
partner's roll with it. . . .

"bimbert84" wrote: . . . .

and "disappearingace" wrote: . . . .

and "bimbert84" wrote: . . . .

and "disappearingace" wrote: . . . .

and . . . .
• hi Natty, if your attemps at arbitration weren t so biased, i would let you have the last word on this, BUT, the passage by mr. gallagher that you quoted, IMO,
Message 10 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
hi Natty, if your attemps at arbitration weren't so biased, i would let you have the last word on this, BUT, the passage by mr. gallagher that you quoted, IMO, is directed to exactly the type of hand we've been discussing. i mean let's face it , any better, or any worse, we wouldn't be talking about it. again IMO, what he's saying, in absentia, if this type of hand comes up, my vote is to BID BID BID and WIN WIN WIN. what i think he was trying to say is that when a marginal(thin) hand comes your way"call it", and don't wait to see what somebody else calls

Natty Bumppo <borf@...> wrote:
This dialogue is getting quite wordy.
What "disappearingace" is saying, in
so many words (I think), is that in
the long run you will make more
points on the hand under discussion
by passing it than by calling it.  I
agree.  As I said, the only time I
would call it is when the opponents
have 9 points.

Thomas A. Gallagher wrote in his
book "Winning at Euchre . . . ":

"Euchre is a bidder's game.  You
must bid at every opportunity. . . .
Just to sit back and pass or hope to
euchre your opponents is a loser's
game.  You must bid to win."

I agree with the theme, and specifically with the first, third and
fourth sentences, of that passage.  I disagree with the second
sentence (and, surely, it was hyperbole; surely he was exaggerating
there).

To paraphrase the instigator of the present dialogue, Patricia M.
White-Divorced-Female-Over-50, a player who passes once in a while can
be a formidable opponent.

In some arenas there is not enough passing.

We all encounter players who boast, "I'm aggressive."  Well, that's
good.  But you don't need to be so aggressive that you stick your neck
partner's roll with it. . . .

"bimbert84" wrote: . . . .

and "disappearingace" wrote: . . . .

and "bimbert84" wrote: . . . .

and "disappearingace" wrote: . . . .

and . . . .

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

• Well -- not to degrade Tom Gallagher, whom I have never met and with whom I have never corresponded, and who is not here to assert the hyperbole I have
Message 11 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
Well -- not to degrade Tom Gallagher,
whom I have never met and with whom
I have never corresponded, and who
is not here to assert the hyperbole
I have ascribed to him, but putting
one little word after another, and
if what he meant is what you say --
you and Mr. Gallagher are simply
wrong.

Ron Brown wrote:

> . . . the passage by mr. gallagher
> that you quoted, IMO, is directed
> to exactly the type of hand we've
> been discussing. . . . what he's
> saying . . . if this type of hand
> comes up my vote is to BID BID BID
> and WIN WIN WIN. . . .
• Hi Ace, ... You must be looking at different results than I am. The results I see in message 3846 indicate something quite different. ... IF he gets to call
Message 12 of 24 , Feb 2, 2004
Hi Ace,

> Haven't the recent reasonably calculated facts
> already indicated that you probably will be in
> trouble calling clubs from first?

You must be looking at different results than I am. The results I
see in message 3846 indicate something quite different.

> Your partner may not call clubs but i'm betting
> on having a better chance to make a point if he

IF he gets to call (due to 2nd beating him to the punch), AND IF he
does call.

> In that previous situation I felt your partners
> trump was insignificant. This potential euchre
> situation is a totally different senario and would
> call for a totally different approach, because of
> seat one lacking aces.

Please explain how the presence or lack of aces in 1st's hand has
anything at all to do with the potential for a trump trick in 3rd
(note that this exercise has nothing at all to do with line-of-play;
it addresses only the potential of a trump trick in 3rd).

> > > is a club call the strongest for your TEAM?
> >
> > Obviously there is no way to know this, nor is there ever.
>
> LOL! Pass and find out.

So I should always pass to see if my P has something better?

> Pre fight prediction - - -key card will fail to show

By what sense of logic and/or probability do you draw this
conclusion? If you want to analyze this reasonably, let's do so.
But a statement that your P probably can't help has no basis in
reality.

-- Rob
• ... Regretfully you failed to sense a blend of humour in my post. My last line in that segment of my reply - LOL, pardon me Rob. I m just trying to lighten
Message 13 of 24 , Feb 3, 2004
--- In EuchreScience@yahoogroups.com, "bimbert84" <bimbert84@y...>
wrote:

> > Pre fight prediction - - -key card will fail to show
>
> By what sense of logic and/or probability do you draw this
> conclusion? If you want to analyze this reasonably, let's do so.
> But a statement that your P probably can't help has no basis in
> reality.

Regretfully you failed to sense a blend of humour in my post.

My last line in that segment of my reply -"LOL, pardon me Rob. I'm
just trying to lighten this up as it trails
to conclusion."

Typically though, all joke do have some basis of reality.

- - - - - - - -

Me:
In that previous situation I felt your partners trump was
insignificant. This potential euchre situation is a totally different
senario and would call for a totally different approach, because of
seat one lacking aces.

You:
"Please explain how the presence or lack of aces in 1st's hand has
anything at all to do with the potential for a trump trick in 3rd
(note that this exercise has nothing at all to do with line-of-play;
it addresses only the potential of a trump trick in 3rd)."

Rob,

If you reread the excerpts below, which I extracted from the posts
below I simply indicated that the approach to attaining euchre in the
2 situations should be totally different. To me, they are NOT! a
nearly similar situation as you suggest. With the present holding in
1st seats hand, if the opps were to make spades trump, 1st seat is
definitely not strong enough without aces, to attempt to attain a
euchre for his team without the help from his partner. (trump or
aces) Contrary, in the hand discussed a while back in which the king
of diamonds was picked up by the dealer, it would be reasonable to
some to expect 1st seat to use the strategy with which 1st seat takes
a line of play which showed a greater concern for removing the
dealers king with a lead, than it shows for removing any lone trump
1st seats partner may have, because first seat has aces to support

These are 2 totally different situations which call for 2 totally
different strategies. Supporting a theory to euchre one of these
hands in one manner and supporting an altogether different theory to
euchre to the other is not hypocritical action which I sense you
suspect I am guilty of.

(Excerpts)

Referring to the hand prsently discussed I said: "It appears that
even a spades call by the opps could easily be euchred by your team."

You replied:
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that. Spades gives you one trick, maybe
a second if you're lucky.

Me:
Not buying that? Happens all the time. You lead Jd, 2nd follows suit,
partner trumps, dealer plays his diamond. Second trick, you trump in
with K trump, 2nd follows card led, -that's 2 tricks in hand with
Right bower remaining in your hand. That's euchre! I'd bag it playing
against an aggressive 2nd seat. He had better, at least, have ace
offsuits and hope no trump in my partners hand. This hand can be
tougher for the opps to score a point if they make trump, than it
could be for me to avoid euchre, if I make trump. It's too euchre
prone.

You:
"Not buying that? Happens all the time. You lead Jd, 2nd follows
suit, partner trumps, dealer plays his diamond?" "LOL! Now you're
counting on a trump trick from your P, in nearly the same situation
you spent many, many posts trying to convince me he's so unlikely to
take it's not worth considering. Now you tell me it happens all the
time."

Me:
"NOT! Not even close to the same situations! The situation you refer
to, which I "gotcha" with in the above reply, had aces in 1st seats
hand, and was an order. Without aces here, the road to euchre would
have to be driven a different route."

You:
earlier assessment (in the other thread) that 3rd's potential to
score a trump is insignificant. Now you say it happens all the time."

Me:
In that previous situation I felt your partners trump was
insignificant. This potential euchre situation is a totally different
senario and would call for a totally different approach, because of
seat one lacking aces.

You:
"Please explain how the presence or lack of aces in 1st's hand has
anything at all to do with the potential for a trump trick in 3rd
(note that this exercise has nothing at all to do with line-of-play;
it addresses only the potential of a trump trick in 3rd).
- - - - - -

*****As for your request: "explain how the presence or lack of aces
in 1st's hand has anything at all to do with the potential for a
trump trick in 3rd" , I have no interest in going there right now.
Maybe somebody else can pick it up from here and explain that
relationship.

Ace- - :-)
• Hi Ace, ... I saw the humor, and I didn t mean to dismiss it. But analytically, the presence of help in your P s hand is critical to your success. It s simply
Message 14 of 24 , Feb 3, 2004
Hi Ace,

> Regretfully you failed to sense a blend of humour
> in my post.

I saw the humor, and I didn't mean to dismiss it.

But analytically, the presence of help in your P's hand is critical
to your success. It's simply not correct to assume he can't help.
Much like leading an A from the get-go. I've heard you say this
almost never works for you, and thus you avoid such leads. But the
fact is they do often work -- for me, I'd guess 40-50% of the time,
depending on who called what.

I think if you were to actually track the success of these moves in
your own play, you'd probably find they align very closely with
mathematical probabilities. It's often easier for people to remember
certain events over others, and I suspect you're just concentrating
(perhaps unconsciously) on the failures.

> These are 2 totally different situations which
> call for 2 totally different strategies.

I think you're taking exception to something I never meant to imply.

I simply pointed out that in this hand, you claimed that if 2nd were
to call spades, 3rd would have a potential trump trick, and that
it "happens all the time." In the earlier 2nd-orders-up-the-Kd
thread, you claimed 3rd was very unlikely to have a potential trump
trick.

I was just trying to point out that the likelihood of a potential
trump in 3rd seat is the same in either case, and has nothing at all
to do with the line-of-play employed.

> > Please explain how the presence or lack of aces
> > in 1st's hand has anything at all to do with the
> > potential for a trump trick in 3rd.
>
> I have no interest in going there right now.
> Maybe somebody else can pick it up from here
> and explain that relationship.

Allow me. The short answer is that there is no explanation, because
the aces have nothing to do with 3rd's hand.

In the earlier thread, 1st held R and dealer picked up K; in this
thread, 1st holds RK. In both cases, LAQT9 are outstanding. In both
cases, the potential for 3rd to have any of them is EXACTLY the same,
regardless of the other cards in 1st's hand.

In short, 3rd is NOT more likely to have trump simply because you
have no side aces, and he is NOT less likely to have trump simply
because you do have side aces. The two events are completely
independent.

That's all I was trying to say. In no way was I addressing the lines-
of-play in either situation.

-- Rob
• Hi Ace, ... Sure, but that s like saying water is wet. ... And that s pretty much the case here. You ve got a good shot at two tricks, don t you agree? If
Message 15 of 24 , Feb 4, 2004
Hi Ace,

> more cards have to be in place at the table, with
> the hand being discussed to be successful for the
> point, than needs to be in place with a first seat
> hand which is stronger.

Sure, but that's like saying water is wet.

> With some hands a 1st seat player may only need his
> partner to have an ace to take it over the top, some
> may only need one small trump to work the point.

And that's pretty much the case here. You've got a good shot at two
tricks, don't you agree? If your P has an off-A or a trump to take
one of your offsuit losers, you're in very good shape.

> This hand is disadvantaged in the way that even if
> 1st seats partner has a lone ace, or a trump less than
> the Right, or, a trump less than the right and an ace,
> it can still be subject to easily being euchred, if the
> other key cards are in either or both of the opps hand.

Don't overlook that second IF about the opponents having the key
cards.

You probably only need one trick from your P. This can manifest
itself in many ways: the R or A of trump (about 50% likely) is almost
a lock for a trick. If not, there's still a very good chance for an
offsuit ace or a ruff of an opposing ace.

The required combination of key cards in opposing hands, although not
necessarily rare, is definitely more unlikely than your P having
something that can help.

> Since there are 2 opps and only one partner, are the
> odds not in the opps favour (basically double) that
> these cards will be in their possession?

Sure they are, but you're missing the fundamental difference: the
opps have to take 3 times as many tricks with those twice-as-likely
cards. You only need your P for 1 trick. The opps need 3. Big
difference.

> You're asking a lot from your partner and the card Gods.

Not at all. You're asking for one trick, that's all. Note Harvey
Lapp's 2nd Commandment of Euchre: Thou shalt counteth upon thy
partner for one trick.

The real issue, IMO, is whether or not you can take two tricks
yourself. Most of the time you can, but sometimes you won't, and
those will probably be the times you get euchred.