 |
 |
At 76*-82 you dealt yourself 3
4
7
8
10
Q , keeping the club flush. The cut is the 2. Pone leads an 8. What's your play? |
hide answers
Dan Barlow:
Although I probably come out ahead in the pegging by scoring 15-2, I don't want pone moving more than ten holes. There are six cards he can peg with if I play the 3 or the 4, and only two if I play the 8. I hate to risk giving up six holes, but I'm pairing, gambling he doesn't have the pair. This gamble pays off a lot more often than most people think.
DeLynn Colvert:
Play the 4. If opponent plays a 7,
you can safely pair away, and you are poised to play on with a
3 for 15 play.
George Rasmussen:
In this situation my opponent needs a combined score of 13 points as a minimum to deal and reach hole 95 on Fourth Street. With average hand/peg/crib scores as dealer I should be at hole 92 at the conclusion of the hand. In this scenario I am committed to playing defensively. Pegs benefit my opponent. On an 8 lead, I prefer to drop the 3
for a count of 11. The 8 lead would often suggest that opponent does not have small cards. In this case, needing a better than average score to attain board position, the 8
could be led from three small cards (A-2-3-8,
A-3-3-8, 2-2-3-8, 2-3-4-8,
3-3-4-8, 3-4-4-8, 3-4-5-8,
3-4-7-8, 3-4-8-8 or some similar combination).
By dropping the 3
I have eliminated the most dangerous small card in the hand. The
4 is not as risky to retain. An opponent leading
8 from a pair is likely to show me the other 8
to make the count 19. In such case, I pair the second 8
for 27 and a likely go, then close the count for 31-2. In most cases, this defensive strategy will change board position to your advantage by playing accordingly. Try
it —
you'll like it!
Michael Schell:
First, let's get our goals straight here. I'm starting the deal
+6 to pone's -4. That would ordinarily call for a slight tilt toward
defense, but my hand after the cut is worth eleven, three more than
an average hand. And although 10-Q in my crib only
averages about 3.3 points in my
crib, pone's 8 lead matches neither my toss nor the
cut, so there's a chance for a nice pickup there (e.g., if she
tossed one of the outstanding 3s). I'll peg at least
one point, being dealer, so the worst I can do is face the next deal
as pone at 88, not a bad prospect. For these reasons, I'm going to
play off in the pegging.
In the real world, psychology and knowledge of opponent's
tendencies plays a real role in cases like this. For example, is she
given to leading away from a pair in offensive pegging situations?
Absent that kind of insight though, I'm thinking that giving up a
quick triple against pone's mid-cards or something as innocuous as
8-8-9-10 could easily cost me the game, even though
playing one of the low cards has the same objective risk (12).
Taking a 15-2 exposes to way too many scoring cards, so I'm back to
choosing between the 3 or 4. The
3 makes the count 11, a good general principle to
follow, though lacking ten-cards, that's a less attractive principle
here, since I can't capitalize if pone makes the count 21. The other
principle that comes to mind in close cases like this, especially
when playing defensively, is to try to give yourself a comfortable
response to opponent's scoring cards. Which of these scenarios seem
less awkward?
8 3 3 (14-2) ?
8 3 4 (15-2) ?
8 4 3 (15-2) ?
8 4 4 (16-2) ?
If pone makes 15-2 off my 3 or 4, I
must either risk a triple by pairing, or else play the 7,
exposing myself to two points against a 7 or 9
(presumably if I wasn't willing to risk a 24-6 by pairing pone's
8 lead, then I'm also not willing to risk a 31-4 by
playing my 8 on a 15-2). Not very pleasant either
way. If pone pairs my first card, however, I'd rather have the count
16 than 14, since I could then play my 8 without risking a pair. For
that reason, and lacking Halscrib's encyclopedic knowledge of
opponent hand frequencies, I'd drop the 4, which also
leaves me with the slightly better spaced
3-7-8.
Phyllis Schmidt:
I play the 3 or 4 (I'm not sure
which I'd pick over the board, and don't have a strong preference).
I would not play the 7 or 8 giving him
a chance to peg too many. I must hold him back as much as possible.
I already have 11 points, so I figure I don't need to peg as much as
I need to hold pone back.
Peter Setian:
I would lay off and play the 4. All things considered (the 2 cut and 8 lead) I would expect to be somewhere close to 87–88 points after my crib is counted. That's a decent position to receive from. I don't think it's worth possibly exchanging pegging
points —
especially here, where the pone is in an aggressive position.
HALSCRIB:
Before the cut, I estimated my winning chances at about 52%.
After the starter and pone's lead of an 8, my winning
chances increase slightly to 53% if I pair the 8.
However, they drop to 49% if I play the 3 or 4,
and to 46% if I play the 7. I agree with the humans
that it is critical to minimize pone's pegging, and I further agree
that the 7 is the worst choice, giving up a score to
a 6, 7 or 9. However
most of the humans pass on pairing the 8, which I
think is actually less likely to result in pone's pegging than the
play of the 3 or 4.
Following is a list of the ten most probable hands pone may hold
(based on the eight cards I've see so far), and their relative
frequency:
| Hand |
Frequency |
| 8-5-6-7 |
6429 |
| 8-6-7-9 |
6185 |
| 8-5-9-10 |
5296 |
| 8-A-6-7 |
4810 |
| 8-2-6-7 |
4353 |
| 8-7-9-9 |
4179 |
| 8-A-A-6 |
3899 |
| 8-A-6-9 |
3653 |
| 8-6-9-10 |
3500 |
| 8-A-6-6 |
3443 |
A couple other relevant hands down in 17th and 18th place (note
the limiting influence of the blocked 8):
| Hand |
Frequency |
| 8-6-7-8 |
2925 |
| 8-7-8-9 |
2798 |
The bottom line is that pone has a second 8 in
only two of her top 25 hands, each worth 12 points, in which case
she will be in favorable position regardless of what I do. This is
why I pair the 8 and expose myself to pairs royale.
And that extra two points could come in handy if my cards falter
down the stretch!
Click
here for a
guide to cribbage notation and symbols.
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.
DeLynn Colvert (1931–2019) is the highest rated tournament player in the history of organized cribbage. He was a five-time National Champion, author of
Play Winning Cribbage, longtime editor of the monthly magazine Cribbage World,
and the ACC's only Life Master - Seven Stars. He also directed two annual tournaments in Missoula, MT, served as the ACC's President, and was one of the game's most affable emissaries. It's scarcely an exaggeration to say that Colvert's career defines modern cribbage. George "Ras" Rasmussen is a Life Master - Two Stars, a four-time All-American, the national Grass Roots Division 1 champion in 2009, a former state champion in Virginia, Montana and Washington, and holds a Gold Award and a President's Award. He also directs the Washington
State Championship, held each year in Centralia, WA. His articles on
cribbage are available on the
ACC Web site.
Michael Schell is a pioneer of modern cribbage theory, which synthesizes traditional concepts of expert play with new computer-informed insights and analysis. He has published Cribbage Forum since 2000. Schell holds a Bronze Award, is a Washington State Champion (2001), and was one of the principal architects of ACC Internet Cribbage.
Phyllis Schmidt is a charter member of the ACC, and has been
playing cribbage for about 40 years. She is a Life Master - One Star, a
Senior Judge, a National Champion (1992) and winner of the ACC
Tournament of Champions (2005). She attends about 30
tournaments a year.
Peter Setian has played cribbage for over 20 years, and has
been a member of the ACC for about 14 years. During that time, he has
won seven major tournaments and earned his Life Master rating. He plays
in about eight tournaments per year, including the ACC Tournament of
Champions and the annual Grand National. He enjoys participation in
Grass Roots Club #72.
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.
|
prior month |
Ask the Experts contents |
next month
