Wes (aka the legend) wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:12 pm
Absolute must call in next. When your enemy turns down a red card and all you have is a Qs and a 10c in black you should be really nervous about the possibility of a 2 seat, 2nd rd reverse next loner. Your hand isn't the greatest but it's actually a pretty strong next call. Even up 9-8, I'd probably still call hearts. This call makes a point often enough. And up 9-8, with a near dead hand in every other suit, I wouldn't wanna risk a 2 seat call closing out the game.
Also, to drive home how often I call next here, let's change your hand a tad. let's say you had this hand at 0-0 after a diamond was turned down:
I would still call next, and lead the Qh hoping to hit my partner hard. This is almost a pure donation play but I think it's worth it when you have a near dead hand because you're just so likely to lose 2 points on a 2 seat call anyways when you have no way to help your partner, so you might as well call next yourself becuz at least you'll block all 4 point sweeps from the 2 spot.
Wes, I want to challenge you first, as a high level player.
Then I want to respond to jblowery, as a slightly less skilled player.
Please bear with me.
Wes, I evaluated the hand as 2.75, using the BPS, which exceeds the 2.25 threshold for a call in Next. So your odds of winning the hand is 2 tads (a tad being equal to 0.25 points above the threshold of 2.25). If I convert that to odds, 2.25 points means I have a 2 to 1 advantage, or a 67% chance of earning a point. If the hand evaluates at 2.50 points, my odds have increased, arguably, lets say a 76% chance of earning a point. If the evaluation is 2.75 points, as it the case with the 1st hand, then there is an 85% chance (again it's arguable) of earning a point. If I am strong in Next, as validated by the 2.75 evaluation, then I am going to be weak in blocking Reverse Next. So, in general, based on typical card distribution, an inherent characteristic of the BPS, then calling is, "an absolute must call in next," to quote you, Wes. If you want to analyze further, as an Advanced player like Wes, you would have to find 3 tads against calling, to overcome the power of 2.75 points in Next. That exception would require blocking both Reverse Calls and an adverse score (3 tads or 0.75 points). That is not the case in the 1st hand. The short version, is that I agree with your analysis, on the 1st hand.
Wes, your 2nd hand evaluates as 1.75 points. That is too weak to call. Of course if you are hell bent on donating, your approach, you disagree. So let's see if there is a more nuanced approach. I suggest that not blocking one Reverse Next Loner is worth a tad (0.25) points and not blocking the 2nd Reverse Next is worth another tad (0.25 points, 2.25 points total), This would be the minimum 2.25 points to call from Seat 1, Round 2. This is an edge call. I would evaluate further. The score is the next consideration. If the Opponents have 6 or 7 points, I would add another tad (0.25 points, 2.50 points total), and I definitely would Donate. But, if the score is not critical, Opponents having 6 or 7 points and able to win the game with a Loner, I would pass. (I can see another exception if we have 9 points and the Opponents have 5 or less. I would call). So I respectably disagree that we should donate 100% of the time with your 2nd hand.
This is also an opportunity for me to disagree with your "Avoid Technical Mistakes" philosophy, "IE Every time you play your hand in a way that you would not if you could see everyone’s hand.”. You use it when evaluating passing, but fail to use it when evaluating passing. That is why I prefer to call it "Total Expectations," instead of "Avoid Technical Mistakes." I have a Total Expectation that if my hand is weak (1.75 points indicates a weak hand), then someone else has a strong hand. So my Partner has a 1/3 chance of having a strong hand. If we include the unexposed cards, and the unexposed cards hold the strong cards, then that is in my favor. So we come back to there being a 1/3rd chance that Partner calls or everyone passes. Why should we eliminate that 1/3rd possibility from our evaluation?
Let me point out that Wes plays higher quality competitors than I play. His higher quality competitors would require Wes being more aggressive in Donating than my mediocre competitors. (BTW that is easily addressed using a point system). My significant disagreement is that Donating 100% of the time is not always the best decision.
Jblowery, if you are still with me, I sense you are more on my level than Wes' and RedDuke's level. That is still a high level or you wouldn't be making quality posts on OE. Honestly, I cannot perform all this analysis in real time, in real games. But I don't have to unless I am playing against Wes or his equal. All I have to do is outplay my competition. That is a winning formula. I recommend that you focus on a quality analysis of the basics: Seat, Round, Cards, Voids, Card Combinations, Next, Reverse Next, the Up Card and Critical Scores, which are readily observed. Leave the advanced analysis alone until you have mastered the basics. The BPS simply assigns a number to each observation. It simplifies and speeds up the analysis of 80 to 90% of the hands. It also increases your confidence when making your decisions. It is not perfect but neither is too much analysis. Euchre is a game of chance and the cards may simply be stacked against you. But I have found that the BPS generally agrees with the experts on this site. That only makes sense since my BPS reflects information from this site!
The acid test, from your perspective, are the BPS recommendations for your 3 questions. They are straightforward and definitive. The BPS is straightforward to apply to other hands Try the BPS out against your competition and determine for yourself whether your success improves or not.