5-7 Friday Hand #15

Ask questions, discuss and debate your strategies, euchre polls and more
Post Reply
User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

5-7 Friday Hand #15

Unread post by Dlan » Sat May 08, 2021 11:08 am

I believe this play was first described by Natty Bumppo back in the early part of the 2000's. Why does it work? Well, while sitting in first, here is what you know. You don't have the left (Jh). The dealer nor his partner is unlikely to have the jack of hearts as neither one called. Give your partner a chance to help. It may be his only opportunity.

Image

https://worldofcardgames.com/#!replayer ... %3A1%7D%5D



Tbolt65
Posts: 717
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat May 08, 2021 2:09 pm

I wonder where Natty got this idea from, :o ;) Perhaps he seen it/read it somewhere and incorporated into his possibilities or range of play?

With all that being said and inferred. I don't subscribe to how it was played here with the current holdings. It's a gamble for sure. It pays off though. Underleading the right is a thing though. Just have to be selective when you are doing it though. It works and not used very often because the scenarios don't come around all that often. When it does , be sure to have this understanding of why and when to play this ploy. It is very useful and can solidify a point for your team or even two.


Tbolt65
Edward

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sat May 08, 2021 2:47 pm

Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 2:09 pm
I wonder where Natty got this idea from, :o ;) Perhaps he seen it/read it somewhere and incorporated into his possibilities or range of play?

With all that being said and inferred. I don't subscribe to how it was played here with the current holdings. It's a gamble for sure. It pays off though. Underleading the right is a thing though. Just have to be selective when you are doing it though. It works and not used very often because the scenarios don't come around all that often. When it does , be sure to have this understanding of why and when to play this ploy. It is very useful and can solidify a point for your team or even two.


Tbolt65
Edward
It's a bad play in this spot. S1 makes a good call but with R+1+0 you don't want your team spending trump on the same lead. Leading under miiight be better than leading the right here but that's missing the main point: leading trump at all in this spot is a bad play. S1 takes an unnecessary risk. When 4 suited with no aces, lead your highest garbage non-turned down offsuit in this spot.

Tbolt65
Posts: 717
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat May 08, 2021 2:52 pm

Wes (aka the legend) wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 2:47 pm
Tbolt65 wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 2:09 pm
I wonder where Natty got this idea from, :o ;) Perhaps he seen it/read it somewhere and incorporated into his possibilities or range of play?

With all that being said and inferred. I don't subscribe to how it was played here with the current holdings. It's a gamble for sure. It pays off though. Underleading the right is a thing though. Just have to be selective when you are doing it though. It works and not used very often because the scenarios don't come around all that often. When it does , be sure to have this understanding of why and when to play this ploy. It is very useful and can solidify a point for your team or even two.


Tbolt65
Edward
It's a bad play in this spot. S1 makes a good call but with R+1+0 you don't want your team spending trump on the same lead. Leading under miiight be better than leading the right here but that's missing the main point: leading trump at all in this spot is a bad play. S1 takes an unnecessary risk. When 4 suited with no aces, lead your highest garbage non-turned down offsuit in this spot.

I do believe we are in agreement here. The ploy is not bad though.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sat May 08, 2021 3:08 pm

The concept is that S4 passed, thus he does not have the Left bower in Next and is more likely with S3, or buried. But that statistically, is almost nonsense because the dealer's partner could have a unguarded Right in what was turned down. It could also be buried and opponent have the Ace in Next.

So what a leap of faith, IMO.

IRISHWOLF

User avatar
Dlan
Site Admin
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:08 pm
Location: Ohio

Unread post by Dlan » Sat May 08, 2021 7:23 pm

While I agree that first would have had a stronger hand by holding an ace or two,
the idea of under-leading trump and not the right, works way too often as not to be considered.

Wes (aka the legend)
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:03 pm

Unread post by Wes (aka the legend) » Sat May 08, 2021 7:45 pm

Dlan wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 7:23 pm
While I agree that first would have had a stronger hand by holding an ace or two,
the idea of under-leading trump and not the right, works way too often as not to be considered.
True. I think there are definitely spots to utilize this play.

Tbolt65
Posts: 717
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Unread post by Tbolt65 » Sat May 08, 2021 10:51 pm

Dlan wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 7:23 pm
While I agree that first would have had a stronger hand by holding an ace or two,
the idea of under-leading trump and not the right, works way too often as not to be considered.
I agree Dlan.


Tbolt65
Edward

irishwolf
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 pm

Unread post by irishwolf » Sun May 09, 2021 1:07 am

The problem is, that this would be very difficult to prove one way or another. Reason being, it depends as much on player's style of play and tendencies (opponents & pard) as much as it does statistics. By no means can you rely on it as an ironclad rule. If I have the Right + 1 in next and a green ace, I am leading the Right. If do not have an off suit ace, I am going fishing.

The best one can say, it works sometimes. But to each his own.

..."works way too often as not to be considered. "

Post Reply