A member posted the following query in the Yahoo! forum Euchre Science:

You are sitting in first chair; the score is 8 to 8; you hold the ace of diamonds, the ace and king of clubs, and the queen and ten of hearts, and the king of diamonds is turned up by the dealer – and down. What do you do?

I, too, played this hand calling hearts and leading one.

But I played it more than once. I played it 25 times, in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory on line. (You can too; here’s the setup.)

And these are the results I got:

We scored one point 15 times.

We scored two points 4 times.

We got euchred 6 times.

That looks like a net of 23 points to 12 in favor of calling “next” on this hand, and four outright wins of the game (but six outright losses). Pretty good, I’d say.

But let’s take a deeper look at the results: I did not “throw out” hands on which the king of diamonds would not have been turned down, in this minisimulation.

Of the six euchres, four probably would not have occurred because the diamond would have been ordered or picked up. On two of these the dealer had both red bowers; on another, his partner had both red bowers and the ace of hearts.

Another euchre depended on the dealer’s counterintuitive lead of the left bower to draw a second round of trump after taking the first round with the ace, not yet having seen the right bower, and having other good leads. And the sixth depended on his leading the right bower to draw a second round of trump, which also could be seen as counterintuitive, since he did not have the aces I held.

So you have to throw out at least four of those euchres, and maybe all of them. I think throwing five of them away is fair enough.

Then, there was one hand we scored a point on in which the opponents should have ordered the diamond; so, that, too, has to be thrown out. The adjusted results:

We scored one point 14 times.

We scored two points 4 times.

We got euchred once.

That’s a net of 22 points to 2 in favor of calling “next” on this hand, and four outright wins of the game against only one outright loss.

I think the guy who posed the problem made the correct call, even if he would not do it again. Call “next” and lead it, even at 8 to 8.

Calling “next” with only a couple of little trump is risky at 8 points because a euchre will knock you out. “Next” (the other suit of the same color turned down), in general, is as much a defensive call as an offensive call – the idea may be as much to stop a loner, by getting euchred, as to score. That defense does not work, of course, when the euchre ends the game.

But “next” is an offensive call also, based on intuition and percentage. The reason it often scores is that the dealer’s team did not have the bower or bowers they needed to feel comfortable with the suit turned up; therefore, your partner might have one or both of the bowers.

In the hand outlined above, at 8 to 8 it may be your last chance to take control of the game; and hearts are the best trump you have. Your aces of diamonds and clubs would rank only third in their respective suits as trump, but they are bosses in their respective suits if something else is trump. It’s do or die at 8 to 8. I say do it.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Partner’s failure to order did not mean he had no help. As it turned out, he had also the 10 of diamonds -- which meant that he was “sitting” on “next”; and he held three spades, for a probable stopper in one of the black suits.

You guessed it: “LittleCubbie,” on HootOwl’s left, went alone in clubs and made it. 4-0 off the bat. Nice start.

It’s just a good reminder of the power in the hands of the dealer. He had a likely point in hearts by himself (he had a nearly sure point with his partner’s help, and a possible march); he had no defense to “next,” the most likely call on his left; and he gave up control of the hand. And so what if he had got euchred picking up the heart? 2-0. Big deal. He’d have been still in the game. Scoring is not the only reason to make trump.

A dealer must remember that his partner’s pass is not a sign of weakness. A good partner will almost always pass a marginal holding in the up card (and sometimes a good holding) because (1) he has no control of the lead (unlike his partner, who gets to play last) and (2) many a dealer’s loner has been queered by an overeager partner.

Two-suited? Three trump? Ace-king high in trump? Ace-x outside in the other color? Pick it up. And go alone with it if you're in a pinch.

P.S. “HootOwl” was rated 1930 – “advanced.” He’d be a candidate for Stone Idiots, but he admitted his error.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Posted at a euchre forum on line: “Actually, bauer means barn. . . . The word euchre means farmer. See www.realbeer.com.”

The site linked (in case it is no longer “up”) said:

Euchre is a trumping card game, originating in Germany. The word euchre means “farmer,” and so the game is thought to originate in the rural areas.

It is closely related to a French game called La Manie. It requires the understanding of the concept of a trump suit (like bridge), but if you have played Uno, it’s not much of a stretch. . . .

This is some of the most ignorant stuff I have ever read. For starters, there is not the slightest concept of trump in Uno, which is a sophisticated Mattel copyright version of “crazy eights” (or “dirty eight,” as we called it in my home town). A “trump” card is a card of a superior suit that will take a trick of any other suit no matter how high the card of the other suit or how low the trump card. There are no tricks in Uno, let alone trump. Uno is not a trick-taking game.

The realbeer.com essay goes on:

. . . The Jack of the trump suit (the “left bauer” (bauer means “barn”)) is the highest card, followed by the Jack of the other same-color suit (the “right bauer”) . . . .

Besides getting the bowers (“bauers”) backward, here is an erroneous definition of “Bauer.” “Bauer” is German for peasant, or farmer. We find this in the message posted to the forum:

[On] Babblefish . . . bauer does come back as farmer, and a farm is a bauernhof. Barn comes back as “stall” in German. . . .

OK. The babblefish.com “free translation” page renders “Stall” to “stable,” from German to English, and “barn” to “Scheune,” from English to German.

But there is no such word as “euchre” in German, and there never was. And “euchre” does not mean “farmer,” in any language.

And, as the forum post ultimately acknowledges, “Bauer” does not mean “barn” in German (nor does it in any other language). It does mean “farmer” or “peasant,” and in German it’s the jack in a deck of cards.

The realbeer.com site linked may be a joke (but it’s not very funny and, whether or not meant as humor, reflects a dearth of scholarship. The euchre forum post, too, may have been a joke; but a fair number of readers took it seriously).

Further: “Bauer” must be capitalized – and so must “Scheune,” and “Stall,” and “Bauernhof” – even in the middle of a sentence. They’re German nouns.

Rather complete etymologies tracing “bower” to “Bauer” and both “euchre” and “joker” to “Jucker” are presented on pages 7-9 and 77 of The Columbus Book of Euchre.

The game of euchre is of Alsatian origin, not German. Alsace historically has bounced between Germany and France like a Ping-Pong ball. Most of Alsace was even independent briefly in the 13th century. Although Alsace became part of Germany in the late 19th century (from the Franco-Prussian War, 1871, to the end of World War I, 1918), and again during World War II (1939-1945), it is now part of France; and most of Alsace was part of France at the time of the invention of the Alsatian game “Jucker” about the turn of the 19th century. “Jucker” is pronounced roughly the same as “euchre”; and, although it is an archaic German word that meant “carriage horse,” it probably denoted a surname in the name of the game.

Alsace is largely bilingual. Although most Alsatians speak German (or, at least, a German dialect), they do not consider themselves “Germans” and, by and large, never did. There is a loose historical consensus that the game known as “euchre” originated among the “Pennsylvania Dutch,” and the “Pennsylvania Dutch” were largely southwestern Germanic peoples including Alsatians.

So, although euchre has roots in the Alsatian game “Jucker” (see David Parlett, The Oxford Guide to Card Games), it’s not German. There is a little French and Spanish thrown into the game, too. And since the game of “euchre” is essentially of American origin in its present form, and the word “Jucker” has been Anglicized (or Americanized) to both “euchre” (through the French “écarté”) and “joker” (from the American wild West, no French at all, thank you), it makes little sense not to Anglicize (or Americanize) “Bauer” also, to “bower” – which is by far how most playing card writers and “Hoyle” encyclopedias spell it.

If we must purify, by spelling bower “Bauer,” then let's go all the way: Let’s spell euchre “Jucker” (and joker “Jucker.” See page 8, The Columbus Book of Euchre.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

BringIt had the ace of trump in reserve and managed to make his point, but we were lucky. When I complained about the jack of spades lead, BringIt explained that he did not want to strip me of trump, that he was “thin.” If that was the case, he should have called “next,” not “green,” if he called at all; and still he should have led trump – and low trump, if he had more than one.

He had a black bower; so “next” was his proper call anyway, if he called at all. And he had a bower in the other color guarded in either suit (he was fortunate to find both other bowers in my hand). He had the power to euchre; he had the power to help his partner.

The only ace BringIt had was the ace of hearts; but that, too, is an argument for “next,” not for hearts: It’s the boss of its suit, and off color. As trump, it’s only third in rank. True, BringIt had only one spade (the right bower, if he had called it); and he had two hearts. But, with the club turned down, the ace of hearts was as likely good for a suit trick as a trump trick, if not more likely. I am not going to go into the many, many reasons to call “next”; they are the subjects of other columns and a lengthy discussion in The Columbus Book of Euchre. Suffice to say that it is a call for your partner as likely as for yourself, and it pre-empts the opponents’ making trump “green” (and BringIt had both “green” suits stopped, as did I. A euchre was lurking).

The proper call was “next” or pass (particularly in a game of “stick the dealer,” and this was); and the proper lead was trump if he called it.

BringIt had a 2017 rating on Yahoo! and is now enshrined as one of Borf Books’ Stone Idiots.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

This was the poll question (in the Yahoo! euchre groups Euchre and Euchre Science):

“When a player exposes two or more cards of his hand prematurely – ”

And these were the replies (out of a whopping response of 15 voters in the two groups combined – counting only once the votes of those who voted in both groups):

[1] There should be no penalty (it’s just bad manners): 2 (13%).

[2] The cards should remain exposed and be played at the earliest
legal opportunities: 5 (33%).

[3] The cards should remain exposed and be played at the direction
of the opponents: 1 (7%).

[4] The cards should remain exposed and be played at the earliest
legal opportunities, and the opponents should be allowed to
command or forbid a lead of their suit by the offenders’ team
if and when the offenders gain the lead: 2 (13%).

[5] The remainder of the tricks should be forfeited to the offender’s
opponents [the rule suggested in my last column ]: 5 (33%).

Obviously there is no majority. There is not even a plurality: The second option tied with the fifth.

We can analyze a little further, however.

Both the first two options, not just the first, really suggest no specific sanction. The last three options give the offender’s opponents real sanctions for the infraction. Looking at the results that way, you find a slight majority in favor of sanctions.

It was the lack of a specific rule on the subject in “Hoyle” (i.e., in commonly accepted rules published in card game encyclopedias) that inspired the poll. Ultimately, of course – unless euchre finds itself governed by a tight-fisted international association, something it has resisted for well more than a century-and-a-half – it will continue to be a matter of “house rules.”

Or “tournament rules.” Competent tournament directors seeing a need to address the issue will continue to address it in “tournament rules,” as all good tournament directors do in all issues of potential controversy.

With the majority (with whom I voted), I favor a real sanction.

Most players observe a sanction for reneging (typically, two or four points for the offender’s opponents, depending on whether they were going alone).

Most observe sanctions for leading and playing out of turn (typically, allowing the offender’s opponents to call the lead or the play of the exposed card – cf. options Nos. 3 and 4 above).

Option No. 1 (“It’s just bad manners”) is fine for people playing for fun, and not for blood, honor or money.

I do have a problem with option No. 2 (largely technical): What is the rule when either or any of two cards or more can be “legally” played on one trick? Who decides? It’s a real question – e.g., if it is a choice between two cards of one suit, or between a suit card and a trump card, it is not always the lower that is of least advantage to the offender. Further determination is required. That leads to options 3 and 4 (and there is a bit of the same problem with No. 4).

I favor Option No. 5 over options 3 and 4, as I stated previously, because I believe that the exposure of multiple cards is more egregious than the exposure of only one card – that it is tantamount to reneging.

The Columbus Book of Euchre did not previously address the issue of simultaneous exposure of multiple cards, but it will in the future. The recommended rule will be option No. 5 above: When a player exposes two or more cards of his hand prematurely (except when going alone, or “showing up” or “showing out”), the remainder of the tricks in the hand are forfeited to his opponents.

Remember, though, we are talking about rules of games, not about laws of states or nations, or treaties of the world. The rules of games always are subject to agreement and convention among those playing, and thus the rules laid out in books and instruction pamphlets are hardly ever really more than recommendations (I’ll bet there are lots of Monopoly players out there who don’t realize that the Parkers Brothers rules don’t require you to put tax payments under “Free Parking”).

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Joseph Petrus Wergin proposed the following rule in Euchre According to Wergin: “If a player, for any reason whatsoever, lays his cards face up on the table, the opponents may declare them all exposed cards and the offender shall play the cards as they are called. This rule is not applicable to a lone hand. . . .” (The lone hand is exempt, of course, because a loner in euchre, like a declarer in bridge, helps only his opponents by exposing his cards.)

But that rule, like the rule in Official Rules of Card Games – which really was designed to cover the exposure of only one card, after all – does not carry a sufficient penalty: Exposing cards gives illegal information to the partner; and the partner can take advantage of that information in playing to the opponents’ leads, as well as on his own lead when he does not have the suit called or called against. And the play of exposed cards may be dictated by the cards themselves: Giving the opponents the call may not give them a remedy at all.

A better rule would be, “If a player not going alone exposes two or more of his cards prematurely – except when ‘showing up’ or ‘showing out’ – his team forfeits the remainder of the tricks in the hand.”

(Exposure of only one card prematurely is either “leading out of turn” or “playing out of turn,” covered by other rules. “Showing up” is playing two or more cards at once that cannot be denied – e.g., leading the top three trump at once, saying, “Contribute three apiece, please." “Showing out” is either claiming the remainder of the tricks by showing that you have all the bosses, or pitching in a hand of nothing but losers, or pitching in at a trick score obviously coming to 3 to 1, when the fifth trick will be meaningless. Even “showing up” and “showing out” may not be allowed in tournament play among strangers, of course, although both are common practices in games among acquaintances. And there are specific rules governing, and thus even allowing, “showing up” and “showing out” in whist. By extension the same is true of spades, which is but a variant of whist with a fixed trump suit and simpler scoring.)

Forfeiture of the remaining tricks “seems very harsh,” commented John McLeod, proprietor of the Card Games web site. It could, in effect, result in a penalty of 2 points – even 4 points if an opponent is going alone.

But it’s no harsher than the penalty for reneging – an infraction that, like exposing the cards, might be committed quite innocently (and rules of card games in general do not distinguish between intentional and accidental or negligent infractions, for to do so would require inquiries, maybe even jury trials, that could delay the games indefinitely). And if the offender’s team already has taken a trick at the time of the infraction, the penalty is effectively only half that of the penalty for reneging. When I made these points, Mr. McLeod replied, “I think you're right. . . . I agree with you.”

And if the penalty is harsher than one you would find in whist, bridge or spades, it should be. There are 13 tricks in each of those games; there are only five in euchre: The advantage of the exposure of more than one card (but fewer than all) to the offender’s partner is correspondingly diluted in those other games, and the advantage of exposure of a whole hand to the opponents is correspondingly enhanced. (And in bridge, the declarer is always “going alone,” in effect, and thus helped even more by the knowledge of exposed cards, and less in need of a penalty.)

Polls on the subject followed in two of the Yahoo! euchre groups; results in next column.

P.S. Remember what got this discussion started: A player exposing his hand to refute an accusation of reneging. Mr. McLeod suggested (tongue touching cheek, I think) that a sharp penalty for exposing cards could open up a brand new ploy for those rogues in Columbus: A deliberately false accusation to entice an opponent to expose his hand!

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

I received an interesting query last month from John McLeod, the proprietor of the Card Games web site. He said that a correspondent of his had reported a euchre hand in which the player to the dealer’s left had ordered up the nine of diamonds; the dealer had discarded; the maker had led the right bower; and the dealer, at his turn, had played a low club.

The player who had ordered accused the dealer of reneging, and the dealer exposed his hand to show that he had no trump – he had discarded the nine of diamonds.

“My correspondent asked two questions,” Mr. McLeod reported: “(1) ‘Is it legal for the dealer to discard the card ordered?’ (My answer was yes – I can find no rule against it anywhere), and (2) ‘What happens next? If a player falsely accuses another of reneging, do the points for the hand go to the accused side?’ (My answer was no – there is no penalty; you have to play out the hand.)

“What is the correct procedure? Was the dealer wrong to expose his cards to prove his innocence? I could not find any discussion of this in The Columbus Book of Euchre, and I would be interested in your comments.”

On question No. 1 Mr. McLeod is absolutely right: There is no rule limiting the discard. In fact, if the lead player orders up and goes alone, there are cases in which it would be foolish for the dealer to keep a singleton trump, since the maker will most likely lead trump and take it.

Mr. McLeod’s correspondent’s second question – and Mr. McLeod’s own questions – are more interesting. Mr. McLeod was correct also in answering that there is no penalty for a false accusation of renege, and that the hand must be played out (a challenge of renege may be made at any time, but resolution of the challenge must await the play of the entire hand, always. To determine the matter at the time of the challenge would require illegal exposure of cards not played, or illegal exposure – during the play – of tricks taken, or both.)

And Mr. McLeod and I thus agreed that the dealer had committed an infraction – not in discarding the card ordered up, but in exposing his hand. It is true also that the matter of “exposing a hand” has not been fully addressed in The Columbus Book of Euchre. I left it rather in the category of things that simply are not done – things you could get cut or shot for.

There are penalties for exposing your hand suggested in some Hoyle encyclopedias and in Euchre According to Wergin, but they really are not sufficient (cutting or shooting would be more appropriate). We’ll get to those suggestions, and to suggestions for a better rule, in the next column.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Here’s the answer to the question in the August 1 column: Why is leading the ten of clubs the only way to euchre the dealer?

The setup, again, is, dealer picks up to hold right bower and ace of spades in trump, with king, ten and nine of hearts outside. Sitting to his left you hold left bower and king and queen of spades, with ace of hearts and ten of clubs outside. The dealer’s partner holds the ten and nine of spades, with ace and king of clubs and queen of diamonds outside. Your partner holds no trump but only the ace, ten and nine of diamonds, the nine of clubs, and the queen of hearts.

You can take another look at the setup, and play with it, in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory.

If you lead the ace of hearts, the dealer’s partner trumps it; and his ace (or king) of clubs and partner’s right bower are good all day for the point. (But here’s a little mistake I made August 1: You could euchre on this lead if the dealer’s partner led back the queen of diamonds and the dealer failed to trump your partner’s ace of diamonds, allowing you to ditch your ten of clubs on it. But both the dealer and his partner would have to be asleep at the wheel for this to work. And a reader – Tom “Ten O’Clock” Scolar – pointed out, the dealer would have to make also a third mistake, by trumping your partner’s lead to the third trick.)

If you lead trump, the dealer is sitting on you with an end play: All he has to do is go one higher, whichever you lead; he still has the boss, and his partner’s ace of clubs is still good (or small trump if the dealer leads back a heart). Doesn’t work.

If he leads a spade (trump), it sets up your own spades and ace of hearts for three tricks if the dealer finesses his ace of spades (you take it with the left bower and clear trump with your next lead) or if he plays his right bower and leads back his ace of spades. If the dealer plays his right bower, however, and leads a heart instead of his last trump, he still makes the point, since his partner can trump your ace of hearts. (Tom “Ten O’Clock” Scolar says that the dealer must play that way anyway, given your partner’s void in trump – and that’s true if he is playing for only one point, or to avoid a euchre. But playing for two, he does not know what you and his partner hold.)

If the dealer’s partner leads his queen of diamonds, your partner’s ace forces trump from the dealer. If he ruffs with the ace of spades, you can overruff with your left bower; but you will still lose your ace of hearts to a trump in the dealer’s partner’s hand. If the dealer ruffs with the right bower, you ditch your ace of hearts and cash your three trump for the euchre. If the dealer ducks your partner’s ace of diamonds, you can ditch your ace of hearts; and you will be sitting on the dealer with two good trump out of three for the euchre – if, as Tom “Ten O’Clock” Scolar points out, the dealer does not duck again on the third trick. All the dealer has to do to preserve his point on his partner’s diamond lead, in sum, is the usual and logical thing: Ruff your partner’s ace of diamonds with the ace of spades. But you can score a euchre here if the dealer plays wrong – twice.

If the dealer’s partner leads his other club, there is not much you can do: If the dealer ducks and you take the trick with a trump, the dealer is sitting on you with an end play. If the dealer trumps, you still have to lose your ace of hearts to the dealer’s partner’s small trump, even if the dealer trumps only with the ace and you take it with the left bower.

Your best hope, considering all the above, is that the dealer’s partner leads a spade and the dealer either finesses his ace or plays the right and leads the ace. Your second best is that the dealer’s partner leads the queen of diamonds and catches the dealer asleep at the wheel.

The dealer can short-cut all this nonsense on the first trick, by the way, by trumping his partner’s good club and leading a heart (but Tom “Ten O’Clock” Scolar says that this, too, would be nonsense!).

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Here’s the setup – take a look at it in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory before you read any further.

A jack of spades turns; and you, sitting left of the dealer, bite your tongue and pass. You hold the left bower and king and queen of spades, with the ace of hearts and ten of clubs outside (it was that ten of clubs that made you bite your tongue).

The dealer picks up the right bower to go with his ace of spades and king, ten and nine of hearts. His partner holds the ace and king of clubs, the queen of diamonds, and the ten and nine of spades.

Your partner holds the queen of hearts, the nine of clubs, and the nine, ten and ace of diamonds – that is to say, nothing.

You want to lead your left bower, but you know better. You think about leading your king of spades, but you prudently abandon that idea, too. You decide to lead your ace of hearts.

But the only way you can euchre the dealer is by leading your ten of clubs. Why?

Play with it. You’ll see (and you’ll need a little help from the dealer and his partner). Answer next time.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Here’s a new web site we’ve all been waiting for: http://euchre.meetup.com.

If you will go there – or to http://www.meetup.com and type “euchre” in the search box – you will find hordes of players just dying to “meet up” and play euchre with you, and probably two coffee shops, a hamburger joint and a book store designated as “euchre meetup” sites – in your own town!

As of this morning Euchre Meetup had a whopping total of 273 players in the world signed up to “meet up” with you to play euchre. (Sources tell me that 270 of these are in Indiana, but I just don’t believe that. Hoosiers are notorious isolationists.)

And here’s the best news of all: This new web site has designated July 22 – just four days from now – as “International Eurchre [sic] Meetup [sic] Day”! At 7 p.m., to be more precise (time zone not indicated – maybe it’s global – or local). In Bowling Green, Ky., and 586 other cities! Let’s see, that’s . . . 1, 2, 3, . . . 2.15 cities per player! Well, so some of us will have to travel a little. . . .

Oops! We just typed in an Indianapolis zip code and got this message: “Not enough Euchre Players near Indianapolis, IN can make it, so this month’s Meetup is cancelled [sic]. Join this topic by filling in the info below and we’ll sign you up for next month.”

But “Meetup is growing very fast.” They’ll even tell you that.

Let’s help it grow: There’s a “Suggest a Venue” link at the bottom of the page. Let’s not let McDonald’s, Barnes & Noble, and Borders hog up all the euchre players. Suggest a “venue”! Suggest Borf Books. Our address is 1931 Willie Webb Rd., Brownsville KY 42210. All of you, please. We’ll have a great time, with or without Joe Andrews.

There is a drop-down query in the “Suggest a Venue” process asking for “type of Venue.” Use your imagination. We ask only that you not list us as a “gay bar.” We’re in a dry county.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Here’s an interesting play, reported by a guy “that no one knows” (like the old Spanish priest in the Randy Newman song). His screen name is “scolar2”; his e-mail address is “scolar4@aol.com” (maybe – it’s hidden after the “@a”); and he signs his messages “Tom” on Euchre Science.

“After I turned down a diamond, my left hand opponent called clubs and led the right bower. I held the left bower and king and nine of clubs, and the king and queen of hearts.

“My partner showed out, and my right hand opponent followed suit to the trump lead. The left hand opponent then led the ace of hearts, which took a trick, and then a spade that my partner attempted to win with the ace. My trumping it drew a ‘Why did you trump my ace?!’ question from partner. My reply was, ‘In order to get a euchre, it’s mandatory.’”

Well, he’s right – essentially. Don’t be too quick to jump on your partner when he trumps your ace. Sometimes there’s a reason.

Others pointed out, and Tom acknowledged, that it was not “mandatory” if Tom’s right hand opponent had played the ace of clubs on the first trick – but he didn’t.

Tom (and only Tom) pointed out that it was not “mandatory” if the left hand opponent had called on a cold right bower (and that, if the caller’s partner had three trump to the ace, it was even the wrong thing to do).

Also it is not “mandatory” if the left hand opponent has only two trump not including the ace.

But the first of those three scenarios was not the case (the caller’s partner did not play the ace of trump). In the third scenario, it makes no difference – you get the euchre whether or not you trump your partner’s ace. Only in the second proposition of the second scenario is it the wrong play (caller’s partner with three trump to the ace), and that’s too unlikely to bank on.

Tom exaggerated a little with the word “mandatory,” but trumping your partner’s ace in this situation is the only way to catch the caller’s ace of trump if he has it, and the only way to euchre the caller if he has the ace of trump and does not have to follow suit on your partner’s lead.

Tom’s partner went *POOF* when the game was over, but he should have stuck around. He had a good partner.

Here’s the hand set up for you in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory if you want to see for yourself.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

What’s wrong with leading losing trump on defense is (1) Daniel doesn’t have a sure trump trick to begin with, with king high; (2) he renders his partner’s left bower useless; (3) he gives the dealer an end play on the first trick (knowing the dealer has the right bower, which his king or queen will not even force, necessarily), and (4) he tips off the dealer to set up an end play with his remaining trump on a subsequent trick, if he can, rather than to try drawing his opponents’ remaining trump.

A “best case” scenario would be seeing the two partners’ hands swapped – i.e., mine for the dealer’s partner’s. Then the heart lead would strip the dealer’s team of the left bower (and, in the scenario dealt, force the dealer’s team to cough up both bowers or bower and ace in one trick). That’s the main reason to lead trump on defense, when there’s a reason – to strip the maker’s partner. That’s not what happened here, and there was no particular reason to believe it would happen (granted, though: Daniel did not know where the left was).

But let’s look at what might be the “worst case” scenario: Go back to the original deal, and let’s say that Wade, the dealer’s partner – for whatever reason, prescient or perverse – holds on to his spades instead of his higher cards. Instead of the jack or queen of spades, he throws his lone king of clubs on Daniel’s initial heart lead (he figures a lone king will lose to an ace, but a second card in a suit might be worth something). Let’s say Wilbur, the dealer, thinking Daniel was bluffing, does lead the ace of hearts back; and Wade still holds doggedly to his spades, tossing his queen of diamonds (either because he’s out to lunch, or because he reasons that his partner is more likely to need help “across” than in “next”).

Daniel eventually gets the lead and cashes his ace of spades, but he loses his nine of spades to one of Wade’s; and he doesn’t get the euchre. If he had led his two spades from the beginning, however, the euchre was a cinch, as shown above.

If you want to make that last scenario a little more plausible, just give Wade the king and queen of spades instead of the queen and jack. That’s an equally likely result of the deal.

So, was Daniel’s leading loser trump on defense wise? Or was the euchre a bit of dumb luck?

You can study and play this hand on Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Turns out the dealer has three trump to the ace, with ace of clubs and queen of hearts outside. Her partner holds the left bower, both “black bowers,” the nine of clubs and the king of hearts. Your partner holds the nine of trump and four spades (all of them but the ace and the jack). Here’s the hand set up for you in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory.

What's the most “logical” lead? Ace of spades, maybe? It’s a singleton, off color.

But an opening lead of the ace of spades never results in a euchre. Try it.

So, ace of hearts? It’s a singleton, too; but it’s “next” – more likely to be trumped. And the maker is on your right, with the trump strength and the end play. I don’t think so.

But, let’s try it. Whoa! It flies! But you get the euchre only if you follow it with the king or queen of clubs (for your partner to trump). There’s no way to euchre the maker by leading both your singleton aces off the top.

But if you lead the king or queen of clubs (and save your aces), you always get the euchre. Your partner takes the opening lead with the nine of trump and comes back with a spade (the only suit he has left). If the maker trumps it, she still has to lose to your ace of hearts and right bower. If she ducks it (by sluffing the queen of hearts), you get the trick with your ace of spades and have the right bower behind it.

So, unusual distribution? Yeah. What does it prove? Nothing much – except, an ace is not always the best opening lead. It’s a little unrealistic to expect three tricks from a right bower and two outside aces. The chance any ace will fly is less than 50 per cent; so the chance both will fly is less than 25 per cent. To euchre you probably need help from your partner (that’s usually the case anyway); and your partner will be reluctant to use his trump on either of your aces, even if he can.

You could cut the chances of your aces’ being trumped on the left by leading the right bower, but not on the right; and a trump lead would as likely strip your own partner as it would the dealer’s partner (in the case presented here it would strip both of them – and set up the dealer’s trump and ace of clubs for the point). Not a very good idea.

By leading away from your aces you are giving your partner a chance to help while he still has trump. What made the euchre in this case was your partner’s ability to trump the suit in which you didn't have the ace. Here’s a previous example. If one of your aces is good, the dealer eventually will have to lead to it (she’s not going to sluff on the trick your partner trumps).

Gary Martin is the author of Euchre: How to Play and Win.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Here’s a hand in which the dealer (and trump maker) could have made two points instead of one if she had finessed. Kiki picked up the jack of diamonds to go with her king and ten; she had also an ace of hearts kicker, and a ten of clubs loser. Ally, on her left, led the queen of spades.

Kiki’s partner, ToadFrog, took the opening trick with the ace of spades (Jadzu, on Kiki’s right, had to play her king, as Kiki got to shed her loser); and ToadFrog led back the ace of diamonds.

Jadzu played the nine of diamonds; and now Kiki had the opportunity (if not the obligation) to decide whether or not to finesse. If Jadzu had the left bower, Kiki could let her partner’s ace of diamonds take the trick and try to catch the left later with her right. Only if Ally, on her left, had the left bower – and unguarded – did it make sense for Kiki to go up with the right.

Kiki played the right bower; Ally played the queen of diamonds, and Jadzu’s left bower eventually stopped the march. Had Kiki let ToadFrog’s ace of trump fly, ToadFrog would have led back the ace of clubs, taking Jadzu’s king and Ally’s queen (along with Kiki’s ace of hearts – or Kiki could have trumped in safely with her king at that point); and then he would have led the jack of clubs. At that point Jadzu is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t: She can play the left bower and lose it to Kiki’s right, and the last trick to Kiki’s king of diamonds; or she can duck again, and let Kiki finesse again, to take the trick with her king of diamonds and come back to grab the left with the right. In either event, Kiki holds the keys playing behind Jadzu.

Kiki made a point, but she could have made two. In bridge or spades or Rook, it's a 50-50 guess where the hurter is. In euchre, it’s a better bet: The left bower could be buried (we assume that Kiki’s partner, ToadFrog, does not have it because he did not lead it; he led the ace. We give him credit for being a good player until he proves otherwise). The finesse is a stronger play in euchre (and pitch) than in other trick taking games: In bridge, spades and Rook (and four-handed pinochle) the missing card will be in one hand or the other.

And if the guess is wrong? Big deal, Kiki still wins a point. She gives herself an end play by ducking: Ally has to lead into her right-king.

Note also that it would have done Jadzu no good to have laid her left bower on ToadFrog’s ace of trump unless she had the king, or had reason to believe her partner had the king guarded. The former was not the case, and the latter had poor odds.

You can look at this hand graphically, and play with it, in Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory.

It would work even better if Kiki had had the ace and her partner had led a lower trump (even the king, say). Then Kiki could have taken the trick herself, with the ace, and come back immediately with the right bower to catch the left: School’s out.

Sometimes there is good reason not to finesse: For example, if Jadzu had shown out of trump on the second trick, you know she does not have the left; and it’s necessary to go up to catch Ally’s left bower if she holds it unguarded. Or, say your partner led the queen instead of the ace; and both the left and ace are out to get you: You’ll probably catch one of them with the right bower; and if your ace of hearts does not catch the next trick, it will force out the remaining trump. The finesse is not a play for every season, but it was for this one.

It’s a play that can work on defense, too, particularly when the maker is on your right.

Think of it as an “end play” with a risk (you’re in the middle).

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

And he was helpful. His very first play was an ace lead that stopped an opponent’s loner.

And midway through the game, my right hand opponent turned down a jack of diamonds, leaving me with ace and nine of clubs, ten of diamonds, and ace and queen of spades – and no “next” to call. So I called “next” – hearts. Both my aces held, and the bot had some hearts; so we made the point, even though the opponents had more hearts, including the ace and the right bower.

The best part of it was this:

Since my partner was a bot, I didn’t have to hear him sneer,
“What did you call that on?!”

And because my partner was a bot, I didn’t have to hear my
opponents accuse me of cheating.

We won, 10 to 3.

When first I told this story, one listener quipped, “You must have been playing with Bot 1, 2 or 3, ’cause Bot 4 and Bot 5 have ‘messenger’!”

Ha! Ha! Yup, it was Robot3! . He’s the best one. . . .

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]

Here the hand is set up for you on Gerry Blue’s Euchre Laboratory.

On the next hand it was Rin_Tin_Tin’s deal; and he went alone: In hearts, with both bowers and queen of trump, and the ace and ten of spades outside. His left-hand opponent, Bagman, led the ace of clubs from a holding of three clubs plus ace and ten of hearts (trump). The Mailman sluffed the nine of diamonds; and Rin trumped in with the queen, drew trump, and led his spades for four points (the Mailman had only one spade; Bagman, as noted, none).

But the Mailman had the king and nine of hearts. If he had trumped his partner’s ace with his king of hearts, he would have forced Rin_Tin_Tin to overtrump with a bower, giving the Bagman a guarded ace.

Here’s that one in the Euchre Lab.

Note that although the Mailman had the nine of hearts also, cutting his partner’s ace with a nine of trump would have done no more to force a trump from the loner than the ace of suit that was led. It would have been a mere waste of trump. Playing the king is what would have stopped the loner. This is the extreme example of “Don’t send a boy [girl] to do a man’s [woman’s] job,” or, “If you can’t play with the big boys [girls], stay home.”

Note also that these two consecutive hands amounted to a six-point turnaround for Rin_Tin_Tin and his partner: The three extra points they did not lose to the loner on the first hand, and the three extra points they did win (but should not have) on the second.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

Borf Books http://www.borfents.com
Box 413
Brownsville KY 42210

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2003] [next]