But I’m fine with that. As you and Fred Benjamin have stated in your books, when behind considerably, go alone! In one game earlier this week we were down 7-0, then 7-4, then 8-4, then 9-4, then 9-5, and then we tied it up at 9-9. What got us to 4 and 9 were two of my extremely thin, and I mean extremely thin, loners in “next.” On one of them the ace of hearts was turned down, and I marched alone with the jack and ace of diamonds for trump, with king and queen of clubs and king of hearts outside. On the other the jack of spades was turned down, and I went alone on king-queen-ten of clubs with king of hearts and queen of spades outside. If we had not been behind a bunch, I would not have made such calls. But, no balls, no babies!

I know you have a section in The Columbus Book of Euchre on going alone and have written internet columns on “next,” but do you have anything on the “next loner”?

Just as close in point as recommendations, however, might be my written warnings to the dealer about the possibility of facing a loner in “next” by his left-hand opponent. For example, I wrote in the next-to-last paragraph of “Double Suited, Part 2” (July 5, 2002) that if as dealer you don’t discard a jack of hearts to pick up a club for ace-king-nine of clubs and king-nine of diamonds, “you are a sitting duck in ‘next’ and likely for a loner.”

And in “Double Suited, Part 1” (June 28, 2002), we stop 9 opponent loners in 100 hands by picking up a ten of clubs for queen-ten of clubs and ace-king-ten of diamonds. It is not reported how many of those stopped loners were in “next”; but it’s implicit, since the dealer’s hand is void in “next.”

The Columbus Book of Euchre says, “If you are behind 9-1 and desperately need a lone sweep to get back in the game, there is no limit to what might work.” That pretty much says it all, as far as I’m concerned; and I’m not convinced that the suit or the position is particularly relevant. If you are in first chair and “next” is as good as you’ve got, well, sure. “Next” works best there, for a loner when you are in dire straits, for all the other reasons it works: If you don’t have a certain bower in “next,” it’s more likely to be in your partner’s hand or buried than in an opponent’s hand; and what cannot hurt you can help you.

But the prescription for a desperation loner applies to “green” also, and to every player at the table.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]

My partner could have called diamonds. It was “next”; we had both bowers, and it was unstoppable, no matter what the opponents held. He didn’t know that, of course (even though he had reason to count on me for the other bower). It was mid-game, by the way, with a close score; no one was going out or gaining a big leg up on one point, or even on two.

But my partner’s best call would have been to pass. The dealer’s partner held ace-nine of spades and three little red cards. Had my partner passed, the dealer’s partner would have called spades (“across”) or passed. She probably would have been euchred in spades, giving us two points. Had she passed, I could have called diamonds myself. My king of hearts was now an “ace,” remember.

My partner could easily have been euchred on the club call. The dealer held the ace of clubs and the ace of diamonds. One more club and her ace of trump would have been guarded, for two tricks, and her partner’s ace of spades would have been their third trick, for the euchre (my only trump having been stripped on the first trick).

I don’t argue with success; so, since we made a point, I did not say anything to my partner. But his decision to call clubs was myopic. It was based on what he held, and nothing else. He had a partner, and two opponents. He did not consider, at all, what the rest of us might have.

Here’s another example. Different game, with different players, but same setting: My partner was in first chair, I was in third. We were down 9 points to 6. The dealer’s partner ordered a diamond, and my partner led: A little diamond. I did squawk about that, but I should have kept my mouth shut: There’s no point in arguing with failure, either, if it cannot be avoided; and we were dead ducks no matter what my partner had led.

But his explanation of why he led trump on defense was what lit my fuse. “I didn't have any aces,” he said, “and I figured, what the hell.”

Having aces is a better reason to lead trump on defense that not having any – because the lead may strip the maker’s partner of the wherewithal to ruff the ace or aces. And “what the hell” is that my partner’s trump lead did not take into account, at all, what I, his partner, might have. What his lead did was strip me of the only trump I had (and himself, too), as the maker took the trick. It did not strip the maker’s partner (the dealer), who wound up with two trump on the order (no surprise).

The leader has to think that if he leads one of the many non-aces he has, and particularly if from a multicard suit, through the opponent who ordered, his partner may be able to use his trump to ruff – and perhaps even to overruff the maker. There’s no chance of that when you strip your partner with a trump lead.

So: Much ado about nothing, you might say. We made a point on the first hand described, and we could not have defeated the opponents on the second.

But my partner’s play was utterly selfish in both instances. In both instances he considered his own hand, and his own hand only. For optimal play, you must think how your partner might help you, and call or play to him if it makes sense that he might help you. That’s what partners are for. That’s what “next for my partner” is all about. And that’s how games are won, in the long run.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]

In the card game “7-up” (known to some as “high, low, jack and the game,” or “all fours”) trump is made – as in euchre – not by bidding, but by turning the top card of the remainder of the deck after the cards are dealt. The “age” – that is, the player to the left of the dealer – can confirm the suit turned as trump simply by leading a card (i.e., by commencing play). ^*

But if he does not like the suit turned – or thinks someone else might like it well enough to pay him to play it – he can “beg.” His beg is to the dealer, who can establish the turned suit as trump by giving a point to each of the other players (it“s an individual game, not a partners game).

Or, the dealer can beg – to his right. And so it goes, to the right. If no one “gives,” another round of cards is dealt; another card is turned, and its suit is trump – no ifs, ands, buts, or begging (unless it is the same suit as before, in which case yet another round is dealt, until a new suit is turned).

So, what’s this got to do with euchre (besides the turn of a card at the end of the deal, and the fact that cards are dealt in threes in 7-up)?

Harvey Lapp, the webmaster of euchrelinks.com (and messenger of the Ten Commandments of Euchre), has come up with a “give” for the privilege of passing the deal in an “STD” game of euchre.

“STD” (“stick the dealer”), you understand, requires the dealer to call trump – whether he wants to or not, whether he has a suit to call or not, whether he has a hand or not – if everyone has passed the card turned up and if everyone else has declined to call trump on the second round.

Harvey – by day a modest craps dealer in the casinos of Las Vegas, by night a jamoke from Buffalo who still likes to play euchre – runs euchre tournaments for friends and acquaintances in his spare time. As you might imagine, some of Harvey’s invitees like to play “STD” (the “diehards” are from Detroit, Harvey observes), and some don’t (some abhor it).

Harvey’s solution? (He likes to make everybody happy so they’ll come back next week.) It’s STD with a twist. The dealer can pass the deal if he does not want to make trump at the end of the second round, but he has to add a point to the opponents’ score for the privilege (“half a euchre,” in other words).

Now, I don’t like that! But that’s only because I’m a curmudgeon. I have to admit that Harvey’s bridge of the STD dichotomy is highly creative. Let’s give another hearty handclap to the Moses of Euchre.

Harvey doesn’t call it “giving” (the term used in 7-up). He calls it “surrender.”

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]

Perry Romanowski posted an article in his “Euchre Universe” blog titled “6 Reasons Why Euchre Is Better Than Poker." In a post to the Yahoo! group Euchre Science, he boiled them down as follows (and reordered them a little):

1. Poker is boring.
2. Poker is just luck.
3. Without money, poker is pointless.
4. Poker is for criminals (“You can’t get arrested for playing euchre” is the way
he put it in the blog).
5. Poker is emotion, no brains.
6. Natty Bumppo doesn’t play poker (in the blog this one was “The characters are
more interesting in the euchre world”).

Except for propositions Nos. 2 and 4 I largely agree, and I have a couple more reasons of my own.

“1. Poker is boring.”

Granted – unless you are playing real poker, for real stakes. Like the farm.

“2. Poker is just luck.”

I disagree. There is more skill required to play good poker than any other card game except, perhaps, bridge. But it’s not card playing skill. See No. 7 below.

“3. Without money, poker is pointless.”

Granted. But see No. 1 above, and No. 6 below.

“4. Poker is for criminals.”

Harvey Lapp, the Euchrelinks web master, Las Vegas dealer and author of the Ten Commandments of Euchre, had this to say about that: “I know quite a few good people that play the game occasionally. They are the bottom of the food chain in the poker room, but definitely not criminals.”

I would add that, even if you can’t be arrested for playing euchre, you can be cut or shot for playing poor euchre. In my experience that’s worse than being arrested, and also it shows that euchre can breed criminals.

“5. Poker is emotion, no brains.”

Poker plays emotions, but emotions do not play good poker. See No. 2 above, and No. 7 below.

“6. Natty Bumppo doesn’t play poker.”

That is a bit of a myth. Natty Bumppo does not play poker very well, however. To play poker really well, you have to play for real stakes, and be ready to risk the farm (or get the other players to think you will risk it). And I don’t like risking the farm.

Actually no one can play really good poker in a penny ante or pocket change limit game. See No. 3 above.

And now, my gratuitous additions:

7. Poker is not a card game – it is a parlor game played with cards. Cards are not played in poker, they are merely shown. What are played are wits, psychological tricks, emotions, and human foibles.

8. “Tournament style Texas Hold ’Em” is not poker. I play that once in a while, too, because my friends think it’s cool. But I don’t like it at all. Why it isn’t poker is that the hands are not played for real money (see No. 3 above). The only money at risk is the “buy-in,” which is something you can afford (the proof being that you “bought in”). Really boring.

9. Euchre is more fun than poker because in euchre there are legal (and therefore arguably ethical) ways to bend the rules – which is why euchre is a lot more fun at a card table than on line, where you can’t renege, or play out of turn, or steal the deal, or engage the “Muncie ploy” or the “Brownstown maneuver.”

Take a look at Perry’s blog entry. He makes some good points fleshing out the bare principles summarized above, and it’s a fun read.

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]

Natty Bumppo, author,
The Columbus Book of Euchre

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

(270) 597-2187 [copyright 2007] [next]