You're dealer at 28*-28. You tossed A 3, keeping 4 5 6 7. Pone cuts the Q and leads the 2. What's your play?

hide answers

Dan Barlow:

In four different games I'm likely to play four different cards. But that's not the answer you want to hear, so let's see...playing the 6 or 7 gets me a run if she scores 15-2, but if the run continues I may get the short end of the stick. Playing the 4 could start a run I'm prepared to continue, but she'll get 15-7 if she has an A. So I'll play the 5.

John Chambers:

The non-dealer has this hand to get into position on Second Street. The non-dealer needs 16 holes. So with an average hand he will need to peg eight holes. Your goal will be to keep his pegging to a minimum. I would play the 5 on the lead, and hopefully use the 4 as an out card in order to keep your opponent's pegging to a minimum.

George Rasmussen:

On a 2 lead, I would play the 4. That is often a good play, as pone will more often lead the 3 if holding 2-3. Also I discarded a 3. Playing the 4 on a 2 lead or playing a 2 on a 4 lead is often a very safe play. Try it — you'll like it!

Michael Schell:

You're guaranteed to get to 41, leaving you at worst +7 as pone next hand. Your opponent started this deal -6. Thus your priority should be defense. Pace Ras, I'm going to rule out dropping the 4 — too many immediate loser, though it's an interesting ploy. How to choose between the others? A general defensive guideline is to leave yourself with the best spacing, but when you've got a four-card straight or a double run (such that all four cards are bunched together), then this principle is usually trumped by leave yourself with a safe reply to opponent's scoring cards. I don't see a great reply if my 5 or 6 is paired, though the following scenario at least let's me snatch a 31-4:

²  ₅  ^5 (12-2)  ₇  ^6 (25-3)  _6 (31-4)

If my 7 is paired, I can safely reply with the 4, avoiding any runs and keeping the count under 21. A 6 reply for 15-2 is awkward though:

²  ₇  ^6 (15-2)  _?

Now I have to choose between the 4 (bad against 2-5-6-7) or pairing the 6, making the count 21. Now I don't care about 31-2 if pone's starting with 2-6-x, but 2-6-6-7 would be unfortunate. I'll take the chance that with that hand, pone would have led a mid-card, so it's the 7 for me.

Peter Setian:

Considering both players' positions, my decision would be to try limiting any excessive pegging. I'd play the 7 so that:

• If pone responds with a 6 to make the count 15, I will pair it to hopefully shut off further pegging, and
• If pone responds with another 7 to pair mine, I can play the 4 to get away from three-card runs. This cannot be done on the lead card if I play the 5 or 6 and get paired

REX:

My win/loss calculations for each of my possible replies to pone's lead of the 2 take into account the starter. Looks like I have about a 32% chance of winning seven deals later and a 58% chance of winning eight deals later with first count. My choice of reply doesn't seem to make much difference to my winning chances — I only calculate about 1% of difference, though the 4 comes out worst. Let's look at the expected pegging values:

Play
		Pegging
		Net (pone/dealer)
4		1.02	(3.72/2.69)
5		1.29	(2.85/1.56)
6		1.48	(3.12/1.65)
7		1.32	(2.98/1.66)

Again, the 4 is in last place, but there's not much difference between the other three. Since I expect pone's strategy to be offense, I'll choose the 5 since it minimizes pone's expected pegging value for this scenario.

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.

John Chambers was one of the original founding members of the ACC. He is a Grand Master, winner of seven major tournaments, and author of Cribbage: A New Concept, He also directs three annual tournaments: the Ocean State Cribbage Classic, New England Peer Championship and Charity Cribbage Challenge.

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.

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.