John R, bcause I am also a Euchre player, please allow me to extend your metaphor. Assuming 4-handed (partner) play, supopose you are holding a "loner" of both bowers, an Ace kicker, and trash, say a couple of 9-spots. You order your partner to fold, because you think you are going to take at least three tricks (which wins one point for that deal). Let's assume you didn't have the opportunity to call trump, and one of your 9-spots is the trump suit.
After the three winning tricks are played, the difference between taking all 5 tricks, and winning 4 points, or only 1 point, is a combination of luck and skillful play.
The "luck" part concerns what your partner was holding, i.e., the cards that won't be played in that deal. If one of your opponents holds an overtrump to your 9-spot and waits until the last trick to play it, or if your off-suit Ace is trumped on the third trick, you lose the 4 points. This is assuming, however, that you did not draw out all the trump cards on the first two plays -- smart players know to play both bowers first to get all the information they can as to where the trump cards are. Do you play the Ace on the third trick? -- If you weren't playing the hand alone, you would probably throw out your off-suit 9 and hope that your partner takes the trick (with the kind of hand you're holding, you are your partner are fairly assured of getting 1 or 2 points, but you're gambling on 4 by playing alone), and hold the Ace for the last trick.
The third trick is the critical point. You know you're going to hold your trump 9 until the fifth trick, gambling that you've exhausted all your opponents' trumps. And you can't play your off-suit 9 in the third trick because it is almost certain to lose. You have to play the Ace. If the Ace is trumped, you'll probably lose everything, and go "set." Your partner will be irritated with you.
So with the Ace kicker to your two bowers, it was a bad decision, playing alone, to come out with the two bowers first -- what would have been a good decision, if you were playing partners, because it tells your partner where the power is. Alone -- you want to play the Ace first; there's a chance it will be trumped if one or both of your opponents are 2 or 3 suited. If you chose to play "loner," though, you have to take that chance. So you'll probably take the first trick with the Ace and the next two with your bowers -- to guarantee the 1 point -- and the rest is pot luck.
Now I realize that Euchre is a regional game of the upper Midwest United States and Canada, so most of the respondents won't know what I'm talking about; they will understand this point, however:
The choice to play alone and keep your partner's cards hidden is what keeps the game from being a 2-player game with equilibrium point (like chess, e.g., where totally rational play in a perfect game is stalemate). The choice guarantees an out-of-equilibrium solution such that after the final trick is played, you will have either 1 point, 4 points or negative 2 points.
One has to remember that if that choice were not made, you and your partner were almost 100% guaranteed to win 3 tricks (and 1 point) and possibly 5 tricks (2 points). So your choice of state (to play alone) determines the final state (the score).
Before the choice, 2 final states were possible. After the choice, 3 final states were possible.
What that extra state means -- with the choice of initial condition in a Bell-Aspect type experiment where the choice function is not invested in detector settings that guarantee a final equilibrium state -- is an added degree of freedom. That is, assuming rational play, one would not choose a negative 2 outcome; if that added degree of freedom were not invested in the continuous function (playing and taking tricks), there would be no reason for a player to play alone without her partner.
And playing a "loner" is in essence what every experimenter does when preparing the initial state of an experiment.
All best,
Tom
