hide answers

Dan Barlow:

I toss 9-Q. Most cuts will give me eight or more, and while 2-3-3-Q gives me a better chance of reaching the 90 mark — improving my shot at a skunk — I'm pessimistic about actually getting the skunk. I'm not that convinced that the game is well under control, in fact, and prefer to give dealer the often worthless 9-Q.

DeLynn Colvert:

The first thought was an easy 5-9 throw. But on second thought, the 9-Q looks awfully good, because even if you hit the 2-3-3-Q, you will be dealing from the 90th hole, needing to get out in two deals (long odds). So all-out defense would be my choice: the 9-Q!

George Rasmussen:

When I have the advantage in a game, I tend to play defensive. Can't bring myself to hold six points (2-3-3-Q) and toss 5-9, which averages very near six. Would sooner play 3-3-5-9 for four points and lead from the 3. Since I'm holding two treys, the 2-Q has a reduced chance to score in the crib. If I were at hole 85 rather than 76, I would go for the skunk, hold the 2-3-3-Q and toss the 5-9.

There's not too much wrong with tossing 9-Q to your opponent. This discard has a lower average than the 2-Q. Your hand now contains only two points, though, and the cards are tightly bunched, which might give dealer a chance to score consecutive runs. Those two factors support retaining the 3-3-5-9.

Michael Schell:

I'm +16 while dealer is -9. I'd guess I'm about 85% to win here, since my opponent would need exceptionally good cards, or else I'd need to fall apart completely. I should be favoring defense somewhat just in case. I certainly don't want to let my opponent back into the game with a pegging frenzy or a big crib. A solid play is to keep 2-3-5-Q. This is guaranteed four points (giving me at least a ten point surplus next deal), and improves to eight or more on anything but a mid-card cut. 2-3-5-Q is a decent enough pegging hand, with a magic five combo (the 2-3) and a Q to break up possible pegging runs.

Ah, but what about the possibility of winning a skunk? Is that too optimistic? Keeping 2-3-5-Q, the most I'll get is ten-points (on a 5 or 10 cut). Assuming I can also peg three points, my maximum offensive production here will be thirteen, which gets me only to 89, not very good position for a skunk try.

So the alternative of 2-3-3-5 is alluring. If I manage to cut a 4, I'll have twelve points, with a decent shot of pegging big if dealer pairs my 3 lead, or gets trapped with ten-cards:

³  _x  ^2 (15-2)  _x  ^3 (28-1)    _x  ^5 (15-2)  _5 (20-3)

This scenario gets me to 93 points, only three points short of the positional hole. I'd still be an underdog to go out in three counts, but not by too much.

The trouble with this plan is that there's a lot of pegging risk. Holding 2-3-3-5 is virtually begging to get trapped into a series of runs. If dealer has three or four low cards, which is quite common, I'll have no way to break off contact once the runs get started. That seems like too much risk for such a small chance of getting into skunk position.

The most aggressive way to play this hand is to keep 2-3-3-Q, which gets twelve points on a Q or low card cut, and ten on any other ten-card cut. But tossing 5-9 seems way too loose to me. Dealer is -9 here, so he'll probably be playing on, and this toss makes it rather likely that he'll score enough to cross the skunk line in three counts even if I do hit the jackpot. I might try it anyway if I was desperate for a skunk, but being the first game of the tournament, that's not the case here.

So, does that leave me with 2-3-5-Q? Well, there's an interesting alternative that's not so easy to spot: 3-3-5-9. This retains a small amount of skunk potential, since it gets twelve points on a 3 or 4 cut, and if I'm lucky enough to have that happen, the 3-3-5 magic eleven will give me good pegging prospects. I could well find myself dealing from 90, without having kept an awkward pegging hand or made a dangerous toss. My 3s give me a protected lead, and my 9 is my break card, which should keep me out of trouble despite holding a 5 (which is always a defensive liability). Furthermore, tossing 2-Q is just as safe as tossing 9-Q here, since two of the four 3s are killed. (Since the 3-3 blocks both runs and 15 combinations, a relatively large swing in the average crib can be expected. Sure enough, Craig Hessel's DS program reports delta of -0.45 for 2-Q, compared to -0.04 for 9-Q and +0.09 for 5-9). Accordingly, 3-3-5-9 is my choice.

Phyllis Schmidt:

Toss 2-Q. Six points is not enough to hold when you throw a 5 to the other crib.

Peter Setian:

I would go for the skunk and toss 5-9. If either position was five points less favorable, then I would toss the 9-Q. But a 5-9 discard with opponent dealing at only 61* still seems pretty safe.

HALSCRIB:

In this position an easy win is likely, but a skunk is unlikely. In situations like this I like to guard against worst-case scenarios. Tossing 2-9 or 5-9 would expose me to a maximum crib of 20, whereas tossing 2-Q or 9-Q would give up a maximum of only fourteen. So I'll start by narrowing the choice to 2-3-3-5 or 3-3-5-9.

2-3-3-5 has more pegging risk exposure than 3-3-5-9. 2-3-3-5 is guaranteed only two points on an unfavorable cut, while 3-3-5-9 is guaranteed four. And finally, If I toss 2-Q and cut a 3, my hand will be improved in addition to the crib. For these reasons I'll discard 2-Q.

Panelists

Dan Barlow won the 1980 National Open Cribbage Tournament, and made the 1985 All American Cribbage Team. His cribbage strategy articles appeared in Cribbage World for many years, and can be seen on the ACC Web site. He also provides strategy tips at MSN Gaming Zone. He has written seven books on cribbage, two of which have been glowingly reviewed in Games Magazine. All, including his latest book Winning Cribbage Tips, are available at The Cribbage Bookstore.

HALSCRIB is widely regarded as the world's strongest computer cribbage player. Its opinion was solicited using a special analysis version of the program. Since HALSCRIB only speaks binary, its thoughts have been translated into English by Michael Schell and its creator, Hal Mueller, a retired mathematics professor and eight-time ACC tournament winner. For more information, see the HALSCRIB home page.