Dlan wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 7:22 pm
In all the excitement I forgot to donate up 9-7,
True, but I was hoping no-one noticed
It's no biggie. Even if they would've won the game on a loner I would've forgiven you after a couple months.
Dlan wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 7:22 pm
In all honesty, that hand was one for the books, not only for the fact that you tried it, but that it was successful.
In future years, when sitting around the campfire, someone will bring up that hand "do you remember when Wes went alone with only......
The craziest part about this game is neither one of our loners should've happened. At least that's what I would strongly argue.
As I alluded to in my first post, the dealer cannot pass that heart call:
A hand that blocks no suits with a decent chance at scoring a point. Up 7-1 it is absolutely criminal to pass that hand. Thanx to Eric Zalas' work we even have relatively strong mathematical evidence that this hand type is a +EV call. Here's a similar hand from his book:
Zalas' hand has an expected outcome of -.274. What that means is as long as you think passing will have a greater cost than .274 pts, then Zalas' hand will be a +EV call. Given that in the actual hand the dealer blocks no suits, and a strong player is in S1, I would conservatively estimate that the cost of passing is probably around 1 full point implying that calling with Zalas' hand has a +EV of (1 - .274) = .726 pts!! The dealer's hand in question is virtually identical in strength. The dealer had a doubleton green ace but so did Eric Zalas' hand as he discarded the 9s. We may never know with precision how +EV this call is, maybe it's higher than .726, maybe it's lower but surely it's above zero. By definition anytime a player passes a +EV hand he hurts his team. And in this case the dealer's team paid the ultimate price.
Tangent: One may think that the statement "by definition anytime a player passes a +EV hand he hurts his team" is equivalent to "anytime a player passes a biddable hand he hurts his team", but they are not. Regarding the latter, it is theoretically possible that passing a biddable hand can have a higher expected outcome than calling with it thus rendering a call -EV. Whereas the former statement is tautologically true.
Ok back to the hand, it is also illuminating to point out that if the dealer had these heart hands he would've called:
Hand 199:
Hand 196:
+ two random cards
Hand 199 has an expected outcome of -.280, and Hand 196 has an EO of -.262. Mathematically those hands are roughly equivalent to the hand we are talking about. And the primary reason one should call with all 3 hands is for defensive purposes becuz after you factor in the cost of passing all 3 hands end up easily being +EV calls.
One last thing that should haunt our opponents. If the dealer does pick up with
His team gets the point IF S2 correctly leads a club on the 2nd trick. S2 will win the first trick by trumping my diamond lead, and since his partner will follow suit with the Td, S2 will seemingly have to guess which lead is best between a spade and a club. S2 has Ks9sQcJc. Since there really is not a safe lead from his Ks9s he is better off preserving his guarded king for later and leading from his clubs instead. If S2 realizes that then this thin heart call will end up eking out a point if you follow the cards!
Ok let's move on to your loner don. That should've never happened either!!
Here's the actual replay:
https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D
Our opponents are up 7-5 and it's my deal.
Upcard is the
and Seat 1 has:
IMO, 1 trump+no aces is a must donate up 7-5. Can't take the chance of going down 9-7. With that crappy hand like that S1's team has a decent chance of losing 2 points on a call anyways since S1 essentially has a dead hand defensively, so S1 might as well call to prevent a possible 4 point nightmare situation. In times of trouble it's better to donate and preserve a 53% equity edge at 7-7 on your deal then to risk being down 9-7 on your deal with just 23% equity.
Ok so in summary both our loners never should've happened. Edward should've called from the dealer spot with 2 trump and a doubleton green ace up 7-1, and Richard should've donated from S1 up 7-5. But here's the most high-larious part about all this. I know Richard's game really well. If Richard was the dealer in Edward's spot I know he would've called. And I know Edward's game really well. Edward is always donating with Richard's hand up 7-5. IOW, even up against the same team, all you have to do is switch the seats and now our loners are never happening. Ha!!