Recognizing that I’m arguing towards fairly clear guidelines, however my buddy and I received in an argument relating to the logic behind solely getting two pegs/factors (Vs. 3) whenever you get a “go” out of your associate after which place a number of playing cards all the way down to finally get to 31.
My logic (working towards the foundations) is that I ought to get 1 peg/level for my companions “go” and a couple of pegs/factors for reaching 31 (whole of three factors for the flurry of exercise). My argument is predicated on the truth that at another time in the course of the sport when my associate says “go” I get 1 level……the one exception to that is after I place my playing cards down after the go and so they end in a 31. I argued with him final night time that if the inventor of cribbage was alive right now and I identified that I ought to get 3 factors (1 for the go and a couple of for hitting 31 straight) that they might say “hmmm….you’re proper….I missed that”.
His rationale, is that when scoring 31, you’re getting one level for hitting 31 precisely and 1 bonus level representing your companions’ lack of ability to play an extra card (his “go”). Hey says “whether or not a “go” is claimed or not, the go is implied whenever you place the final card on the finish of the spherical to make 31….thus providing you with two factors whenever you attain 31 even when a “go” is communicated”.
Any perception into how you can argue both aspect of this scoring mess?
