That Pesky 16 v T

[Pelerus]

I ran a few searches for "16 versus 10", but no luck - even though I know I have seen those threads before! I am looking for a bit of clarification regarding this hand, which seems to garner a different piece of advice from every source I consult.

The basic strategy engine on this website lists "hit" as the correct play for a game without surrender and "RS" (surrender / stand) as correct otherwise. Is this because in a game with surrender, if one does not have the option to surrender a 16vT it is because the 16 is composed of 3 cards rather than 2?

Synder would seem to confirm this, because his "comprehensive basic strategy for any number of decks" advises "stand with 3 or more cards" - regardless of the type of game.

Incorporating counting, it was my understanding that "stand" becomes correct at a TC of +0.5 or greater - but if one goes by Snyder then this a moot point in a surrender game, because one would have either been surrendering or standing all 16s from off the top... implying that strategy deviation for 16vT is only necessary in NS games.

[KenSmith]

You've pegged the reason why the Strategy Engine shows Stand with 16vT only if surrender is available. In a game with surrender, you'll surrender the two-card 16s, and standing with the rest is better than hitting.

Actually, the TC for standing is not +0.5, but just zero. As you can tell, 16vT is a very close decision, and just one card out of the deck can change the decision.

Your point about the index... Even in a surrender game, you'll want to use the index number of zero for any 16s that arise from 3+ card hands or after splitting when you cannot surrender.

[Pelerus]

Thanks for the confirmation, Ken.

With regard to the index, I see what you mean for negative counts: in a surrender game, it is only a count <0 rather than >0 which calls for a deviation on 16vT! (In which case, you would hit those non-surrenderable 16s rather than standing on them.)