Always Call Right+1 As Dealer?

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
Post Reply
RedDuke
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:22 am

Always Call Right+1 As Dealer?

Unread post by RedDuke » Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:38 pm

This came up during a game I just played.

Score was 5-5. I am dealer.

I'm holding this:

(Card_J-D) (Card_J-S) (Card_J-H) (Card_A-D) (Card_9-S)

Upcard is the (Card_J-C) .

Predictably, everybody passed round one and it came around to me.

This one poses a very interesting situation. If I pick up, I've got both bowers and a green ace, which is pretty easily a point.

If I pass though, then I'm in a pretty good position to euchre the enemy no matter what they call. I can also make a pretty easy point on a reverse-next diamonds call in the second round if it comes around to me.

I think that this one might be an exception to the rule that the dealer should always pick up a jack if he has another card in the same suit. Here's why. This hand is not good for two points if you pick up. It's definitely good for one, but you'll need your partner's house because the two red jacks are a weakness.

If you pass, then you have a pretty good chance to euchre a next call from first seat with the two trumps (right+1) and the green ace. If the enemy actually crosses the river, you've got a pretty sure euchre with both bowers and the ace. Two points from the euchre are better than one.

If it comes back to you (ie everyone passes in round 2, which a lot of amateurs will because you've got all the jacks) then you call diamonds and go alone. You've got all three top trumps and you're two suited. The worst that happens is that the enemy manages to stop you on the spades but it's still a point.

That's actually how I played this hand in the game. I passed on the right, it came back to me and I went alone in diamonds. Unfortunately, one of the enemies had the spade ace so I got stopped on the fourth trick, but I still got a point. That's the best I would have had if I picked up.

I think that a situation like this is the exception to the usual rule. If the dealer actually has a euchre hand in all three of the remaining suits, he should pass on a right even if he has another trump in the turn suit.

Thoughts?



Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:53 am

I think your turn down is fine however Im going to try to squeeze 2pts out this hand instead of going for 4pts.

Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Fri Dec 25, 2020 6:15 pm

First I want to point out I wouldn't really call this a R+1 hand. While having both bowers is technically a R+1 hand it's a rather special situation compared to other R+1 holdings.

I also don't agree with the strategy of "always call with R+1 as the dealer". If we have a hand like this

Upcard: (Card_9-C)

We hold: (Card_J-C) (Card_10-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_J-D) (Card_K-H)

I would pass. A significant part of the value of calling with R+1+nothing else is the defensive value of preventing S1 from never making any 2 pt and 4 pt plays.
No point in calling marginal when we have all suits blocked. At the very least, no one can really say passing R+1+nothing when we have all suits blocked is wrong. No one really knows.

Ok now onto those scenarios where your R+1 = both bowers. Having both bowers is a significantly stronger hand than other R+1 scenarios. So much so that I would only consider passing both bowers if a had a euchre hand, I.E. all suits blocked with approx 2 tricks in every suit. In this hand you have that, with approx 3 tricks in red, and 2 tricks in Next. I think passing here is fine. Is it optimal? Will passing here net you more points than calling in the long run. Hard to say but I suspect it will so I like your play.

Bonus: there is a non-euchre hand with both bowers I would consider passing and that is a hand like this (say the upcard is the JC):

(Card_J-S) (Card_K-S) (Card_9-S) (Card_J-D) (Card_K-H)

If S1 calls Next super aggressively--which is actually a very rare player profile--then passes like this can totally exploit him. I would not run this play without a least a stopper hand. And out of all the players I've played with, I can count on one hand how many I would consider running this play against.

As far as whether you should go alone or not in diamonds, I don't recall any hand samples from Eric Zalas' book that could shed some light on this. So we have no data on that front. I would go alone, but I am not confident the EV of going alone here beats out the EV of calling.

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:18 am

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Fri Dec 25, 2020 6:15 pm

I also don't agree with the strategy of "always call with R+1 as the dealer".
Wes and I may have to agree to disagree here.

While there will always be those unique hands where the general guidelines don’t exactly fit, but euchre is a partnership game. In the long run, giving the correct information to your partner out-weights any benefits one may gain by not doing so.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:03 am

Dlan wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:18 am
Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Fri Dec 25, 2020 6:15 pm

I also don't agree with the strategy of "always call with R+1 as the dealer".
Wes and I may have to agree to disagree here.

While there will always be those unique hands where the general guidelines don’t exactly fit, but euchre is a partnership game. In the long run, giving the correct information to your partner out-weights any benefits one may gain by not doing so.
Yeah, the information argument doesn't work here imo because the fundamental premise of the argument--we are giving incorrect information--while technically true doesn't really matter. That argument implies we are losing information and gaining nothing in return, but that's not really true. What's actually going on here is we are trading information, and it's a fair trade.

Here's an example to illustrate what I am talking about. Let's say I am your P and I pass on a (Card_9-H) upcard and the action gets to you in the 2nd round and you make a reverse next club call with:

(Card_A-H) (Card_10-H) (Card_J-C) (Card_9-D) (Card_10-D)

Then S1 leads the (Card_Q-H), you play the (Card_A-H) and S3 plays the (Card_K-H) and I play the (Card_J-H)

The instant you see that (Card_J-H) you can gleefully smile becuz now you know I MUST have a hand that can help you becuz I am only passing R+1 when I have all suits covered. So I MUST have a guaranteed trick in the suit you called. Furthermore, equipped with this critical information you now know exactly what to lead on trick 2 to guarantee your team a point, the Right bower.

Let's do another example, a kinda worst case example so to speak. Assume again I pass the 9h and the action gets to you in the 2nd round and you make a reverse next call in clubs with:

(Card_Q-C) (Card_J-C) (Card_10-H) (Card_10-D) (Card_9-D)

S1 leads the (Card_A-H) you follow suit as does S3 and then I play the (Card_J-H)

So you lose trick 1 precisely becuz I passed with R+1. Apparently not good but you still crack a smile cuz once you see that JH you know help is coming and your team is now a huge favorite to get a point.

What about those times I pass on the Right bower upcard? Well the thing is the only time I'm passing the Right with an apparent calling hand is when I have a euchre hand. These type of hands are very rare. They're such a small percentage of our overall Right bower upcard passing range they're arguably irrelevant. I think these hands, like the OP's, definitely fall under the "unique hands where the general guidelines don’t exactly fit". In this case I'm gonna have approx 2 tricks to help you no matter what you call in the 2nd rd. So when I pass the Right bower with an apparent calling hand you will now get even more help than before. That more than makes up for the information problem.

Now with all this said, the claim that one should pass R+1+nothing if they have all suits blocked or one should pass both bowers if they have a euchre hand is still unsettled. It's ultimately a math problem that can only be solved with some good simulations. All I can do is say what I would do here and what I think is correct but I cannot say I KNOW what is correct. What I do feel confident in saying tho is that the "information problem" will play no role in this argument becuz what information we lose by passing R+1 we gain back in a different form.

RedDuke
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:22 am

Unread post by RedDuke » Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:20 am

Dlan wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:18 am
Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Fri Dec 25, 2020 6:15 pm

I also don't agree with the strategy of "always call with R+1 as the dealer".
Wes and I may have to agree to disagree here.

While there will always be those unique hands where the general guidelines don’t exactly fit, but euchre is a partnership game. In the long run, giving the correct information to your partner out-weights any benefits one may gain by not doing so.
I have to disagree on the information argument, at least with this particular hand.

In this case, it literally does not matter what trump is. I've got the ability to help my partner no matter what gets called. I've got 2-3 guaranteed tricks in reverse next (depending on hearts or diamonds), I've got one guaranteed and one probable trick in next and even on a next call, I've got the ability to throw under my partner's trump lead with that 9. I could also throw off either red jack if he is set to take the first trick.

On this hand at least, I don't think my partner having more information will change the outcome of the hand.

BTW, by turning down the right, I also told him that I'm void in clubs, which I technically am.

Richardb02
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Unread post by Richardb02 » Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:44 am

Great discussion covering “Always order R+1,” “Loner” and “communications”!

I have been developing an overall principle of analyze: offense and adjust for defense. From this post I am adding analyze: super-offense and adjust for super-defense.

This thinking was developed from our football metaphors. Actually, it is the failure of our football metaphors! It fails because in football you are almost always in an offensive or defensive posture. Euchre is much more fluid than football. It parallels hockey (why Canadians love Euchre) but even more accurately basketball! In basketball, good defense, like forcing a turn over or a rebound leads to an offensive opportunity. In basketball, the fast break can lead to 2 or 3 points or even 4 points, with a foul on a 3 point shot & a made foul shot, which gives you 4 points, just like a Loner! A nearly perfect metaphor!

I suggest that we say always order Rx, instead of R+1, unless defensive purposes suggest otherwise. In this particular hand the second level of analysis, super-offense also applies! (The diamond Loner)!

The euchre hand meets the defensive test. In fact, as a nearly perfect euchre hand, it qualifies as a super-defensive hand! So this concept says pass and play for euchre and 2 points!

I rate the diamond Loner as super-offense! IMO, there is a 30% opportunity to take 4 points! Plus you are guaranteed to take 1 point. EV= 70%x1+ 30%x4= 1.90 points. That is huge! If we play for 2 points, assuming Partner has a 1/3rd opportunity to help, EV= 47%x1+53%x2= 1.53 points. Significantly lower.

My 30% 4-point expectation is based on my experience but can also be deduced. Most people see 3 single card Stoppers and fail to seize the 4 point opportunity. But that is static thinking that fails to account that with most hands, opponents will only have 2 possible stoppers on the last trick. Opponents have to guess the right suit to hold. They have a 1/3rd opportunity to guess wrong, 33%. I round down to 30% to cover adverse card distribution.

Dylan’s point about communicating with your partner is critical to correct play but IMO there is an exception. The exception can be understood from the “Analyze offense and adjust for defense” principle. You communicate when you need your partner’s help. In this hand you don’t need your partner’s help, except with horrible card distribution, IMO. That meets my test that this is an “exception hand.”

My initial thought after reading RedDuke’s OP was, I like your thinking! After reading the other posts and further developing the “Analyze Offense and Adjust for Defense” principle, I like his thinking even more!


User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:28 pm

Accurate information is helpful not only in the bidding process but how the hand plays out on the opponent's call as well.

Now I find myself wondering, is my partner truly void in X, or does he have one of those rare hands?

Richardb02
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Unread post by Richardb02 » Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:15 pm

Dlan wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:28 pm
Accurate information is helpful not only in the bidding process but how the hand plays out on the opponent's call as well.

Now I find myself wondering, is my partner truly void in X, or does he have one of those rare hands?
Fair enough, but now consider your hand. You don’t have any Bowers! The probability of you having a strong order is very low. If you do order thinly, you will have strong support from Dealer. You will still be playing for 2 points instead of only one if R1S4 orders.

IMO, we crossed the analogous point in ordering a Loner with the Left and not the Right, or an off suit K but not the Ace. S2 cannot help S4 because S4 has all the offense that is needed.

This is a rare hand, which is required to overcome the importance of communicating correctly and create an exception. Exceptions, like this post, don’t have much practical application but definitely are some of the most interesting and viewed posts on the forum.

The most important takeaway, from this post, is OE’s principle, with very rare exceptions is, “Giving correct information to your partner out-weighs any benefits one may gain by not doing so.”

Tbolt65
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:06 pm

The subtitles of euchre or the "grey" areas as Wes likes to say is an area that not only falls on the ones doing the communicating but those on the receiving end as well. For example. It is imperative to understand the turned down suit and what may or may not mean. It should be expected that your partner is recognizing the amont of trump in play. What has been played and what is possibly left or even buried. This goes the same for all non trump suits as well. Theses subtitles are vast and even goes as so far as into the psychology of euchre. Understanding the communicating process and the logical play of your partner no matter the skill will help you understand how you must play and when to trust your partner when they have false carded the opponents.

Tbolt65
Edward

RedDuke
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 2:22 am

Unread post by RedDuke » Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:01 pm

Dlan wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:28 pm
Accurate information is helpful not only in the bidding process but how the hand plays out on the opponent's call as well.

Now I find myself wondering, is my partner truly void in X, or does he have one of those rare hands?
I argue that you weren't given enough information here.

I turned down a black bower. That tells you two things:

1. My strength is in red so you should call red if you have a strong hand in a red suit.
2. If you want to call next, you should try it alone.

Either of those are fine options. I'm holding the next bower (and the left is out of play) so if you've got something like (Card_A-S) (Card_K-S) (Card_Q-S) (Card_A-H) + 1 you will almost certainly sweep the table on a spades loner. Yes, I would try that hand alone from second seat even though I don't know where the right is as I've got enough strength to not need my partner's help. If the enemy had the right, it is a one point hand whether I go alone or not.

I don't care which reverse next suit you call since I'm holding both red bowers.

The only thing that you don't know is that I am also in a position to euchre a next call from either opponent. If I picked up the jack, you still wouldn't know that.

Remember that pretty much no matter what you do, you're running with a pretty marginal hand unless you've got something strong enough to run with a spades loner.

I'd argue that you absolutely do have enough information here to figure out what to do. This applies to either the calling or the play of the hand.

Post Reply