hide answers

Dan Barlow:

If I don't peg a few holes, I'm likely to be in about the same position pone is now, at the start of the next hand. On the other hand if he moves more than ten holes, his chances of winning are pretty good. Did he lead that Q because he has a pair? Or is it just the old "see one, play one" strategy? I'm going to gamble that it's the latter. The probability of cutting that Q — if he has another one — was 1 in 40. My guess is that if he has another Q, he probably has a very good hand, and I'm going to lose. So I pair the Q, hoping he has something like 5-6-7-Q or 4-5-J-Q.

DeLynn Colvert:

You are dealing from 74 (+5), pone has 85 (+0). Dealt A-3-4-6-9-Q. Q cut, pone leads Q. Pair the Q. Only one Q can beat you, and you have a good chance of trapping a 5 with your remaining A-3-4. Hold 3-4 for last if possible. Risky play, but the odds are good in your favor.

George Rasmussen:

You have a small hand after cut with six points and cut does not benefit your discard to crib. Pair the Q. You need the points and this play offers you other pegging advantages as the play progresses. It will be a safe pair most of the time. Opponent will likely have other ten-cards and push the count to 30, and you score 31-2 with the play of the A. By playing the hand this way, you have also kept the 3-4 intact for a possible trap of the 5 for a run of three and a go. This will work whether non-dealer is holding 5-5-x-x or 5-x-x-x. In this situation, the dealer will often score 2-2-3-1 unanswered pegs. Go for it!

Michael Schell:

Before the cut I'm +4 while pone is -1. Ordinarily that calls for defensive play. But after the cut I've got only six points in my hand, with a starter that doesn't match my 6-9 toss. It looks like I'll need to peg a little to make up the difference, so I'm switching to cautious offense. That means pairing a ten-card lead when you have an A in reserve.

An important factor here is that the starter matches pone's Q lead. If it didn't, I'd probably chicken out and play the A instead. But in this case taking the pair actually has defensive merit, since it follows the principle of minimizing the objective risk. My Q has one loser that gives up six points, for an objective risk of 1 · 6 = 6. My A or 4 would have six losers giving up two points each, for an objective risk of 6 · 2 = 12. So the Q actually has less overall risk (at least from a statistical perspective) than the alternatives, though if pone does triple me, then the game is pretty much over, since he'd then be guaranteed to get to at least 97 even if his last two cards are worthless. Nevertheless, with my own position looking precarious, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

Phyllis Schmidt:

I would play the A first. My hand is not strong enough to give away a possible six points at this time (by pairing the Q).

Peter Setian:

Considering that only the "case" Q is out and I have an A in my hand, I would probably pair the Q lead for an "all or nothing" play. If the pone has the case Q, there is a very good chance the hand counts to twelve or more points anyway. As such, even without any pegging, the pone will deal from a good position. I would have to easily have points to spare (dealing from 84) in order to play the A on the Q lead.

HALSCRIB:

This is a close game, and this deal is clearly pivotal. Before seeing any cards, I project pone will squeak out the win as non-dealer two deals hence at 121, with me sitting at 100. This assumes average scoring of 26 points every two deals. Immediately after the cut, things look even worse, with me scoring three points less than average on this deal, meaning that I'll only get to 97 before my opponent goes out.

However, my opponent's Q lead changes everything, since I now calculate that he will probably peg only one point here. With average scoring over the two following deals, he'll fall in the stinkhole, while my crib puts me out at 123. That makes me a favorite, and calls for defensive play. And this, in turn, rules out pairing pone's Q.

What card, then, should I play? Some of the humans may count six losers for the play of the A or 4 (three As and three 4s), compared to seven for the play of the 3 (four 2s and three 3s). But this ignores the frequency of occurrence of pones' possible hands. For the play of the A or 4, there are twelve likely hands that allow pone to score (A-A-4-Q, A-2-3-Q, A-4-4-Q, A-4-5-Q, A-4-10-Q, A-4-J-Q, A-4-Q-Q, A-4-Q-K, A-5-9-Q, A-10-J-Q, A-J-Q-K and 4-5-6-Q). For the play of the 3, there are only five likely hands that allow pone to score (A-2-3-Q, 2-3-5-Q, 2-3-10-Q, 2-3-J-Q and 2-3-Q-Q). Accordingly, I'm playing the 3.

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.