Giving Cribbage a Spin or Two!

 

Hi Again first of all Happy Christmas to all my readers, hope you had a swell time partying and opening Christmas presents. I for one got a spanking new Backgammon set which I really enjoyed receiving and which allowed me to dust my backgammon gaming skills after years of abandon due mainly to lack of gaming partners. If you haven’t had an opportunity to play this fascinating game then believe me you have been missing on something good. I would also seriously suggest you get down to using a doubling cube and at least develop a working knowledge of what a 7-point game entails and how to go about playing one.

Yet people this is not about Backgammon but about a fascinating British born game which I have grown to enjoy though it still frustrates me at times. I’m here referring to the game called Cribbage. Cribbage was born as a pub game and employs a very peculiar scoring board which takes many forms, shapes and sizes but which is normally composed  of 2 tracks of 60 or 120 +1 holes and four small wooden pegs which are used to keep individual scores on said board.

The game employs some jargon that goes with playing it but personally I do not think it should be considered a hurdle towards learning this card game. So how would a game of Cribbage play out?

 

Goal

For starters the goal is  to peg (or score) 121 points, whoever gets there first wins the game.

 

Dealing and Choosing the Dealer

For the purpose of the following descriptions we will be assuming a 2-player game. So in order to determine who will be the first Dealer, one player (or both) will take turns  the shuffle the deck and turn over one card each. The player turning over the highest ranking card wins. If both players turn over a card of equal rank for instance both turn over a King, then suits come into play with Spades ranking highest followed by Heart, Diamonds and Clubs lowest.

The designated dealer then shuffles  the deck a second time and deals 6 cards to each player face-down.

 

Building the Crib

In Cribbage the Dealer gets  to also play a secondary hand called a Crib. This Crib is made up of two cards contributed by each of the two players and is scored later in the game. Obviously The Dealer will want to place the best possible card combinations into the Crib whereas his opponent called the “Pone” would want to give the Dealer the worst card combinations possible. Determining what cards to throw into the Crib is perhaps the most important skill to master in Cribbage.

When both players, that is the Dealer and the Pone have both placed their two chosen cards into the Crib, a situation develops whereby both players now end up with four cards in their hand with a separate four-card Crib which as indicated earlier will be scored by the Dealer later on in the game.

 

The Up turned card

Once the Crib has been built the Dealer once again shuffles the deck of cards, cuts the shuffled deck and deals one card face up to the table. This card will be uses to score both players hands as well as the Crib but is not used during Play. If this card happens to be a Jack, then the Dealer immediately scores 2 points calling this score “for his heels” or something of the sort but essentially he gets two cool points before even bothering with hitting off the Play.

 

Play

This is where the game becomes interesting. Basically both players starting with the Pone take turns to turn over one card at a time from the four dealt them but making sure they do not exceed 31 points. If no one can play a card without going beyond 31 then the last player to play a valid card to the table gets 1 point “for last”. If on the other hand a player can play a card to score exactly 31 points then he gets 2 points.

It is important to note that at no point during Play are either players cards piled on top of each other or mixed in any way. Each player lays the cards in front of him NOT on the other player’s cards. As soon as 31 is reached or no valid card can be played without going over 31, each player places his cards aside and a fresh round of play commences till all players play ALL their cards.

 

Scoring

We have already seen that a Dealer earns 2 free points if he draws a Jack as the Up-card. We have also seen that a player who plays the last valid card in Play gets 1 point (if he does not make a 31) or 2 points if he achieves 31 points exactly. There are however more scoring options and whenever a player does score he moves his “peg” along the Cribbage board for an amount of holes equal to the points scored. So for example if he scores 4 points, he moves his peg 4 points forward on the board.

“15” – fifteen is a very important number in Cribbage, during Play or scoring when a player successfully scores 15 points he also scores 2 points on the Cribbage board.

“Pairs” – pairs score 2 points in Cribbage, interestingly three-of-a-kind are also scored for as many pair combinations as it is possible to extract from them…so three-of-a-kind which offers 6 possible pair combinations scores 6-points and four-of-a-kind scores 12 points for the same reason.

“Runs” – A run is a sequence of three or more cards. A Run of three cards (e.g. 4-5-6) earns the player 3-points a Run of 4 cards (e.g. 10-J-Q-K) earns the player 4-points so on and so forth. Interestingly unlike when forming pairs or three or four-of-a-kind a Run need not be played in perfect sequence to count.

“His nobs” – This is basically holding a Jack in hand in the same suit as the original up-turned card. However here the lucky player gets 1 point not 2. Additionally this score can hypothetically be scored by either the Dealer or Pone.

“Flush” – As in poker four cards of the same suit earn the player an additional 2 points however this score is NOT scored during the Play phase of a hand of Cribbage but later when scoring the individual hands.

 

Scoring Hands

Once the Play segment of a hand of Cribbage is over, players now proceed with scoring their individual hands. As happens during the Play stage, it’s not the Dealer that scores first but his opponent or the “Pone”. Also the Up-turned card exposed at the start of the hand by the Dealer is now considered as being part of the hands being scored for example:-

Player A has  5-8-10-J and Player B has 3-3-9-K and the up-turned card is a 9. Suits as you might have surmised by now are irrelevant towards scoring. The sole exception being when scoring for his nobs since the Jack must be of the same suit as the up-turned card.

So for a hand composed of 5-8-10-J-9, Player A scores:-

4 points for 15 X 2 (5-10 and 5-J) and an additional 4 points for a Run of four 8-9-10-J. Player A scores 8 points for his hand.

With a hand composed of 3-3-9-K-9, Player B scores:-

4 points for 15X2 (3-3-9 and 3-3-9) 2 points for 3-3 and 2 points for 9-9. Player B also scores 8 point for his hand.

However Scoring is not over until the Dealer also scores the Crib he is entitled to. Again any scores accrued are added to the total scored so far and pegged on the Cribbage board accordingly.

…and that’s all there is to know about playing a hand of Cribbage…or almost.

Obviously then as indicated earlier players play a number of hands with Dealership moving from player to player until such time that one player attains or exceeds the 121 score. It must also be worth noting that it is possible for a player to reach the target score mid-hand. when this happens the hand is considered concluded as would be the game. From this we can arrive to understand why the Pone is given the right to play and score first, since otherwise he would be at a terrible disadvantage with respect to the Dealer who scores for both his hand and the Crib.

Muggins, Skunks and Stink Holes

When I first read about these particular terms associated with Cribbage I could not help but laugh. The first term Muggins, well it reminded me of Harry Potter where humans were called Muggles. In Cribbage however scoring Muggins means scoring for points an opponent failed to count in the first place. I personally think it is a very cheeky rule and I would personally advise against using it during play especially if either player is new to Cribbage and still learning his ropes so to speak. To win by a Skunk or  a double Skunk means to win with a difference of 31 and 61 points respectively. Finally  the Stink Hole is the nickname given to the 120th hole, just one off winning a game (121). It feels obvious to me that these colourful terms stem directly from the pub culture that spawned this game.

Playing 3 and 4 Handed

It is also possible to play 3-handed (3 players) or 4-handed (4 players). Obviously you would need a board that can tackle four players or alternatively 2 boards that can tackle 2 player each. Additionally  in the case of a 3-handed game the player deals one card from the deck to the Crib and the remaining three cards are contributed by each of the three players who are initially dealt five and not six cards. Turns follow a clockwise direction.

In a four-handed game each player is dealt five cards  and each then contributes one card to the the Crib to bring the Crib total to four. All other rules remain the same for both three-handed and four-handed play.

Conclusion

Cribbage is a great game and can offer hours of fun. As with all pub games, Cribbage can also be played for small stakes but it is still a lot of fun even if it is played competitively for points. It also teases the mind forcing each player to constantly think on what cards might score the most points when placed in the Crib. From my very limited experience I can assure you that the most improbable card combinations end up scoring you the most points on the board. Regardless as with most card games this is a game that you will learn by playing mostly.

Post Scriptum

The promised video review of some of the decks in my collection is still in the pipe-works but I hope to be able to put it up by the first week of January latest. Until then, Happy holidays and a Happy New Year 2012 to all!

Read More

Merry Christmas from Cardoholics Anon.

It's hard to believe that Christmas is once again upon us with all the hectic frenzy that goes into getting the right present for the right family member, wrapping up gifts and preparing our homes for some merry times together. During this season let us not forget those who perhaps do not have people around for some reason or another, maybe you could grab yourself a deck of cards and liven up a couple of hours for these souls. 

Cards and card games in general are perhaps one of the oldest forms of recreation and socialisation known to modern man. We have to thank the Chinese (in all likelihood) for their invention and the Arabian merchants for introducing them into Europe in the 14th century. 

Regardless, finding that one game that you can play competitively with friends and family can be in itself a bonding tool that beats most other rowdy forms of entertainment. Sure you have got to concentrate to play your A-game but I'm sure you will still find the time to spare for a few exchanges of idle chit-chat in between shuffling a deck and grabbing some drinks and snacks for all those sitting at the table.

Perhaps this could be the right time to dust your 40-card Italian deck for a game of Scopa or Scopone Scientifico, maybe you would like instead to play Gin-Rummy or Cribbage or Poker. Whatever you choose to play take the time to explain the game play to beginners to these venerable yet refreshing games...and no matter how intense the game might get...remember it's only a game, luck goes round in circles and if you wait long enough and play your cards right....you will win you fair share of hands.

So revive the charm and beauty of sharing a good card game with some great friends or perhaps someone you have not seen in a while this holiday season. Use the cards as an excuse to rekindle perhaps flagging friendships and remember that the greatest gift you can offer someone is your own time, attention and well-meant company.

So from Cardoholics Anonymous I would like to take this opportunity to thank you first of all for visiting this blog and then to wish you all a truly Joyous Christmas 2011.

Read More

A few thoughts on gambling

 

What thoughts cross your mind when you hear the word “gamble”? Even though I am not a mind reader I am almost 100% certain that the word will conjure images of casinos, betting houses, horse and dog racing,  not to mention poker and dice games.  Your visions I am sure will be somewhat formed by what religious views you hold which may or may not preclude a person from viewing the gamble as an artifice of the prince of darkness himself! No I’m not referring to Ozzy here.

Before I proceed with this exposition, I would like to state upfront that I am neither pro or against gambling per se. The gamble makes part of our daily lives, we live with the consequences of several gambles we take during the course of our existence. We gamble on what path to take in our careers, what restaurant to choose over another, what partners and friends we choose to share part or all of our lives with. The list never ends. We learn, without calling it “a gamble” that most things in life are about 50/50 decisions. Any form of competition can be considered a gamble, even a marathon runner is gambling that his body can take the strain and that he can endure above all others…yet things can go wrong. The runner may hit a nasty snag on the ground come crushing down on his face and break a limb! Believe me such a scenario is not as far-fetched as it may sound. A football team may gamble millions on a top class footballer basing their purchasing decision on potential future goals and league trophies that could be won. Yet even here that top class player may suffer an injury and for months on end if not for the entire duration of a contract, that team will suffer the ill-fated outcome of their initial investment gamble.

So what’s wrong with gambling per se? Nothing, nothing at all, we thrive on gambling even when we opt to choose one brand of product over another at our local supermarket. Yet there is an aspect of gambling that is wrong, that twists the spirit of the gamble turning it into an uncontrollable addiction that can snap a spirit turning even the brightest of men into mindless automata.

While gambling is inherently present in most if not all of our daily decision making processes, they (the decisions) are never (or one hopes at least) taken without an adequate hedging of possible outcomes. The hedging can be attained in many ways. You may study, and I mean study, statistics to determine what outcome might be marginally if not significantly more probable. You may delve into accessing information that might give your decision making process an edge over other fellow gamblers. You may have gone through enough iterative gambling cycles to deduce possible outcomes almost instinctively.

I have seen the aforementioned mechanism of study effecting outcomes even in the way poker games have evolved over the past decade. In No Limit (aka NL) Texas Holdem which became incredibly popular thanks mainly to the introduction of televised poker games and tournaments, the game concepts evolved dramatically. In the early days of the poker boom for instance, the recommendations for play favoured tight-aggression. A player was invited to be highly selective in his choice of pocket cards but then to play the right cards very aggressively. The method worked, allowing players to get their noses wet before swimming with the sharks so to speak.

Yet the internet and in particular internet poker rooms threw the proverbial wrench in to the system by speeding up the gameplay and allowing players to experience hundreds if not thousands of hands in a relatively short period of time. This exposure to such intense gameplay resulted in a thorough analysis of the way in which tournament NL Holdem is played and eventually to the methodical exploitation of a weakness inherent in tournament structures.

With all things being equal, most tournament players today now know what positional play is all about. They also know what tells are and what “table image” can do for your game plan. They have learnt these things from publications by Caro, Helmuth, Negreanu, Malmuth, Sklansky not to mention the legendary Doyle Brunson. It’s almost expected as being a given that the moment you sit down at a poker tournament you at least know these facts. Essentially the amateurish play of bygone years is almost never tolerated if not outright ridiculed at the table. The new generation of players have learnt to use the power of their chip stack as a weapon, to play marginal holdings in position to attack old-school tight-aggressive players. These same players have learnt how to mask their “tells” to varying degrees and to manipulate pot-odds to favour their stronger hands as necessity would dictate.

So in these tournaments, where the only investment is the initial buy-in particularly so in freeze-out tournaments, where does the gamble feature and how is it being espoused by all participants? Even with the huge online archive of information available to all contestants at the touch of a button, Holdem still relies squarely on the gamble, the luck of the draw. The truth is that these younger players are testing their mettle in a sanitized situation; I would not be surprised to discover that among those final table tournament players one would be looking at future business men and decision makers. The gamble is teaching these youngsters the importance of studying your opponents, in gathering information, in playing your odds conscientiously and in the virtue of controlling your own emotions while manipulating those of others. It teaches them competition in a scenario that is not that far removed from the cutthroat world of modern markets and trade.

The real risk lies not with those who approach the gamble knowledgably, but with those who bring to the table a plethora of misgivings, superstitions and ignorance. The gamble for these players is a bane. They are not gambling but rather waiving any ownership over thought and control opting instead to burn their wagers at the altar of chance. When a gambler does this, he cannot win in the long term. Surely he might win in the short-term but when this happens his lucky streak will eventually dry up to be replaced by a deep chasm loss, debt building and serious financial and social problems.

Regardless, I feel that the gamble itself, the structured risk taking it fosters, should not be demonized. If tackled appropriately, it can offer significant lessons in matters pertaining to everyday life. Additionally, the live play variants that engender face-to-face contact between participants also offer socialisation, recreation and why not fun! As with all things in life, moderation is the name of the game. Learning to segregate game time from work and other duties guarantees that none of the areas within one’s life will suffer.

The greatest example to all I have said in this brief discussion comes from a televised Poker show called the Million Dollar Challenge. In season one there was Father Andrew Trapp, a Catholic priest who played poker on the show to help his church in Garden City, South Carolina in the United States. I admired the fact that he not only played great poker in my opinion, but that he also found an opportunity to try and make something good out of a favoured pastime. Still the lesson to be learned here was that it’s not so much the gamble that can be bad but the way the gamble is approached.

Read More

Trick-Taking Card Games

 

It’s quite interesting that as I grew, my exposure to trick-taking card games was at first quite limited. The general feeling I have from my early days is that my family and friends were more interested in Rummy-type (therefore strictly melding) games or card-capturing games like for instance Bella Donna (was tempted to include Scopa but this was a game I learned much later), a game I have mentioned on a number of occasion on this blog.

In an attempt to ratify the situation, perhaps in the process fill in a lacuna in my card-gaming knowledge, I started to research trick-taking games. To begin with from a historical perspective, trick-taking games were all the rage in the early days of continental card playing. From the original game of Tarot, to Whist, Hearts and Spades, trick-taking card games appear to have been by far amongst the most played. One cannot claim that this is the same today, particularly with the overwhelming popularity of Poker (in particular Texas hold ‘em) through televised cash-games and tournaments.

So what’s a trick anyway? In trick-taking games, each player is normally dealt a number of cards (one quarter of a standard deck of 52 cards in a four-handed game). Starting the game would then involve either determining a Trump suit or perhaps there would be a specific Trump card that would be required to be played first. Either way, a player will “lead” a trick by playing a card from his hand to the table. The player who would be the next in line to play would then try to either play in the same suit as the player leading the trick (if he can) or otherwise play any other card he might hold.

Of course winning a trick, once all players would have committed their chosen card to the table would depend on a number of factors. For instance, a more common mechanism to determine the winner of a trick would be to determine the player who played the highest card in the lead or trump suit. Whether it is determined by the leading player at the beginning of a trick, or by some form of random selection at the very beginning of a hand depends on the game being played.

It is then normally the scoring that differs substantially from one trick-taking game to another, but other than that the basic game play described above is almost always the same.

As an example let us consider the trick-taking game called Hearts.

Hearts descends from a much older family of trick-taking card games called Reversis. The original version of Hearts is thought to have been developed from the aforementioned game at around the middle of the 1800’s. That original version of Hearts lacked a number of rules now accepted as forming part of standard Hearts. For instance there was no penalty for capturing the queen of spades and nor was it possible to “Shoot the moon” both rules which I will describe later. Hearts is still fairly popular today (and maybe Microsoft have contributed significantly to this game’s popularity by including it in their Windows Operating system) and is played both live and on computer-based, multi-player games. As with all trick-taking games, in Hearts the deck of 52 cards is dealt out evenly among all four players. Before any hands commence, each player then passes three of his cards to the player to his left. This gaming mechanism is specifically a Hearts thing. In subsequent hands these three cards are passed to the right and then, in the following hand, across. The rotation of passes is repeated for as long as the game lasts.

The player who is dealt the 2 of clubs must lead the first trick of a hand. If a player has another Club-suited card he should play it, otherwise he should lead with any other card instead. Capturing cards from the hearts suit will score points against you with each card costing the capturer 1 point. The Queen of Spades then must also be avoided at all costs since she will cost the player capturing her 13 points. There also appears to be a rule which states that the Queen of spades may not be played on the first trick nor can she be passed with the three cards at the start of a hand, but I have still to confirm this one. Hearts may not lead until they are broken, or basically until one player is forced to play a heart on someone else’s lead because he does not have a card in the same leading suit. Some rules add that playing the Queen of Spades during a trick also qualifies as breaking hearts. As scoring goes the rules for standard Hearts hold a notable exception to the above, a rule called “Shooting the moon”. If a player successfully manages to capture all 13 heart cards plus the Queen of Spades, he not only does not score the resultant bad points but his overall score will be reduced by 26 points while his opponents' score will be increased by the same amount. A full game of Hearts is normally concluded when one player scores or exceeds 100 points; the winner would be the player holding the smallest (penalty?) score.

For the uninitiated folk, and that included me for a time, Hearts may appear to be elusively simplistic, involving game play that appears to be held in sway by the luck of the draw. While admittedly, as with all card games, luck does effect the evolution of play, over a number of hands it’s not only luck but conscientious and strategic use of the cards dealt that really effects the final score.

The above applies to Hearts as to any other trick-taking card game (and not only) in existence. If we were to disassemble the strategies for specific trick-taking card games to their simplest possible form, we arrive to a set of guidelines that will tend to apply for all similar trick-taking card games.

This information which follows is the result of research as well as contributions from fellow card players and I will therefore not attempt to claim exclusivity over it. What I do suggest is that if you do try out these concepts, give them a few good rolls, perhaps over a number of complete games since statistically significant results can only be attained over a sizeable amount of gathered data.

Let’s first of all consider two aspects of Hearts that could give a player a strong say into whether he will win a hand or not.

The first relates to the Queen of Spades. She is worth 13 bad points and you definitely need to get rid of her as soon as possible. Some players like to keep her a bit longer especially if they also hold an additional 3 (or more) high spade cards like K-J-10 or J-10-9. Holding these more powerful cards ensures that no one else can effectively lead using Spades, allowing the holder of Q of spades more versatility into when exactly to drop the bomb on someone. Spades lower than Q should not be passed on pre-hand as these might actually allow you to dodge the black Queen when someone else drops her on any given trick.

The second aspect relates to “Shooting the moon”. If you hold a suspicion that any player at the table might be trying to achieve his goal, you might want to work out a means to capture a heart or two in your next trick. Those cards may cost you 1 or more points but they would also ensure that the player who might be trying to “Shoot the moon” does not reap the benefit of seeing his score reduced by a whopping 26 points.

Other points to consider if you really intend to “Shoot the moon” would include being in a position of strength at the start of a hand, which would translate to holding as many of the higher ranks from the hearts suit as possible. This will guarantee to an extent that you will hold a high probability of winning all the tricks that matter and as a consequence achieve your goal.

So the main strategy that one needs to adhere to and make his own is to ensure a sensible amount of control over the way tricks are won or lost. This can be attained by first and foremost controlling the stronger cards you are dealt while also paying close attention to what cards are won from one trick to the next. In Hearts for instance it makes sense to keep tabs on all the hearts that have hit the table as well as all the higher ranking spades. In other trick taking games were the suit may be decided at the beginning of a match, you would have to keep a sharp eye for any cards that are played in that Trump suit. Most trick-taking games allow you to as a minimum to execute moves that allow you to control any damaging effects you will incur as a consequence to an unfortunate draw. Over the course of a many hands, the effects of those negative draws can only be offset against a proper and diligent use of strategy when it comes to the play of cards.

Read More

Cards from around the World

I just wanted to drop a few lines regarding my upcoming video review which will be focusing on 5  very particular decks that make part of my growing collection.

The first deck hails from Indonesia, a diminutive deck with suits and ranks that follow the Chinese Money Cards tradition. Two other decks are renditions of modern Mahjong tile sets but in card form. I will then review the Piatnik Tarot Deck, which isn’t a divination deck but rather created specifically for the rather complicated trick-taking game of Tarot. The final deck I will be reviewing will be a Russian 52-card deck.

---

On a different Note, Cardoholic’s Anonymous now has both a  facebook   and Google+ page, feel free to drop by and Like or +1 these pages depending on which you happen to visit!
Until Next time…shuffle those cards and deal
Also Cardoholic’s Anonymous now has  an official email address:
  cardoholics.anonymous@gmail.com

Also why not try out this entertaining poker app on Facebook called Our Poker

Read More

A few words on Edmond Hoyle (1672-1769)

 

I would like to think that Edmond Hoyle was a bit like me, a Cardoholic who loved his card games. Back then the card game of choice was Whist (a precursor of modern Bridge) but he did not just describe and enumerate all the rules pertaining to this game alone. He wrote about every game he put his hands on and for which he held some manner of interest. For instance he published rules and strategies pertaining to backgammon, chess and 3-card Brag the latter considered one of the precursors of modern poker. He however never wrote any materials regarding Poker, the game matured much later.

His passionate interest in card games and games in general, not to mention the books he published made him an undisputed authority to such an extent that his name was used, sometimes fraudulently to afford a certain patina of repute to other questionable publications.

Funnily enough while any self-respecting card player will most probably have heard of Edmond Hoyle, little is known about the man’s early years. We know for a fact that he trained to become a lawyer and that for a time he also tutored members of the English Royal family in proper Whist game play. Other than that we don’t know much else. Some historians apparently speculate that he was born in Yorkshire and that he owned some land in Dublin but others believe that it was another Edmond Hoyle, not the “Father of Whist”.

Whist belongs to a family of card games known as trick-taking game. Basically the main premise of all trick-taking games is a comparison of cards with the highest card played winning the trick (winner takes all the cards involved). Players normally endeavour to play one card at a time. The player starting a trick is said to be leading because his card will determine the rest of the trick played. Pinochle and Hearts are examples of games that adopt a trick-taking mechanism. Some trick-taking games employ trump suits, sometimes chosen randomly or perhaps stipulated by the name of the game itself. For instance in Pinochle the trump suit is determined before the tricks are played, in Hearts, hearts will eventually carry the most bearing toward the final win etc. Whist is not any different; partnerships may or may not be used depending on the variation played. Solo Whist for instance played in Britain focuses mostly on individuals with each player making a bid to the number of tricks he intends taking. Sometimes there might even be temporary alliances to facilitate the trick taking process.

While Trick taking games are interesting and I have tackled some of them on this blog (see my adaptation of the French game “Tarot” in my Card Games section for instance) I still don’t find them that appealing. I tend to prefer matching (Rummy, Gin Rummy etc.), fishing (Scopa, Bella Donna), counting (Cribbage) and comparing (Blackjack, 31, Poker) games which I consider to be significantly more appealing perhaps because I was brought up playing these or similar games as a child.

Back to the subject matter, my respect for Edmond Hoyle stems from his evident methodology when it came to approaching the popular card games of the time. The fact that his name even today is used almost synonymously with reputable game rule compendiums is a testament to all he stood for.

One thing is certain, playing games or writing about them must have done Edmond Hoyle a tonne of good because in a time when it was normal to die rather young, he died at the very venerable age of ninety-seven years in London, England.

Read More

New document on Scopa Strategy

Check out this PDF document for some interesting strategy tips to consider when playing Scopa.

Read More

My third Card Review - Italian Regional Cards

Here's my third Card review regarding Italian regional cards. If you would like to post any comments or send me any feedback about this video review please feel free.

Read More

Bixkla the Maltese Briscola

Bixkla is the Maltese name for a variant to the game of Briscola a trick-taking game for 2 to 4 players originally hailing from Italy. From a little research it turns out that this game is notably linked with countries bordering with the Mediterranean and it therefore comes as no surprise that countries such as Croatia, Spain, Portugal, and even Malta have their own variations.

My interest in this game was piqued by an acquaintance who mentioned playing this game when he was younger with a family member who was apparently well versed in the associated rules. In this acquaintance’s recollection (whom I shall refer to as Joe) of the game, cards from 4 to 6 where removed from the deck leaving only Ace,2,3, 7,8,9,10,J,Q and King. This effectively gave a 40-card deck though the construction is not exactly what one would find in Briscola. In the latter the 8’s, 9’s and 10’s are the absentees from the deck also resulting in a pack of 40 cards. This is but one of the differences that I can so far discern between the variant offered by Joe and the game of Briscola.

Dealing a hand in Bixkla is identical to Briscola with three cards being dealt to all participants and the topmost card of the remaining stock being turned over to determine the Trump suit during the first deal. However Joe insisted that Bixkla was strictly a four-player game whereas Briscola is known to be played by 2, 3 (with a minor modification to the deck) or 4 players. Another aspect where I found a little agreement between Bixkla and Briscola is in the scoring of the cards. In both instances Aces score 11 points but then in Bixkla Jacks, Queens and Kings score 10 points apiece with all remaining pip cards not worth any points. In Briscola on the other hand 3’s are the next highest scoring cards following aces and are worth 10 points. The King then is worth 4 points, the Queen or Cavallo (depending on the deck employed) is worth 3 points and the Jack 2 points. In agreement with Bixkla even in Briscola the remaining pip cards are not worth any points.

To be quite far, removing the cards from 4 to 6 or 8 to 10 does not truly effect the game play in Bixkla. The significant difference if there is one lays in the fact that 3’s are not worth any points. The fact that the picture cards (J,Q,K) are then scored at 10 points apiece would appear to somehow compensate for the 40 points (4 X treys scoring 10 points apiece) lost by not scoring anything for the 3’s.

Another variation which I think is significant comes into effect during trick taking. In Briscola for instance a player may lead with any card he wishes, it does not have to be in the same suit as the Trump. Likewise if he does not lead a trick, he may also choose to play any card he wishes without being obliged to play a card in the same suit as the leading card if he so wishes. Yet if a player fails to play a card that is not higher ranked and in the same suit as the leading card or if he does not play a card in trump, he will lose the trick. Let us now consider three-tricks played following Briscola rules and illustrated in the example below.

Table 1 - Two-handed game, the exposed Trump card is the J¨.

Trick	PLYR	Hand	Lead	Response	Winner	Stock Card
1	A	3¨ J§ Kª	3¨à		ü	7§
	B	Aª 5ª Q©		ß5ª		6¨
2	A	J§ Kª 7§	Kªà			2¨
	B	Aª Q©6¨		ßAª	ü	4§
3	A	J§ 7§ 2¨		ß7§		...
	B	Q©6¨4§	6¨à		ü	...

In the above table you can see three tricks played by 2 players. In Briscola, players replenish their hand with a card from the stock following a completed Trick, this is also catered for in the above table.

1.       First Trick – Player A decides to play 3¨ which is in the same suit as the J¨(Trump). Player B cannot respond with a higher ranked card in suit so he opts to limit the damage by offering a zero-value card the 5ª. A wins the trick. Player A then takes a card from stock the 7§ and Player B does the same and get the 6¨.

2.       Second Trick – Player A having won the first trick decides to lead with the strongest card in hand the Kª, Player B responds with the Aª opting to keep his 6¨ for a more favourable situation. Player B wins the trick this time. Player B then takes a card from stock the 4§ and Player A does the same and get the 2¨.

3.       Third Trick – Player B now decides to lead with the 6¨, player A does not have a card in the Trump suit that is higher than the 6 played by his opponent, so it’s time for damage control, he opts to play the 7§. Player B wins the trick.

The game obviously continues till all the stock is used up but even by following these three tricks one can get a feel of the way the game proceeds.

In Bixkla, always according to Joe, there is a further variation when it comes to trick taking. When cards are played none of which would be in the same suit as the Trump card, it is the highest ranking card regardless of suit that wins; the leading suit is not even considered. This changes the scenario appreciably in addition to introducing a significant simplification to the game. Let us consider the same example as above but now we will apply some minor modifications as well as this variation to the play of Tricks.

Table 2 - Example 2:  Trump card is the J¨ - Applying the “rank” variation to trick taking

Trick	PLYR	Hand	Lead	Response	Winner	Stock Card
1	A	3¨ J§ 4ª	3¨à		ü	7§
	B	Aª 5ª Q©		ß5ª		6¨
2	A	J§ 4ª 7§	J§ à			2¨
	B	Aª Q©6¨		ß Q©	ü	4§
3	A	4ª 7§2¨		ß7§		...
	B	Aª6¨4§	6¨à		ü	...

In the first trick, Player A leads with a card in Trump the 3¨, Player B can only once again limit damage by playing the 5ª which carries no point score. A, the winner of the first trick, now does not have any cards in Trump so he opts to play the J§, this is when the variation offers B an advantage, since it is rank that wins in the absence of a trump card he plays the Q©, which ranks higher, winning this trick. In the third trick illustrated in the Table 2, B now leads with the 6¨, A has a 2¨ but in this situation it’s both the trump AND ranks that decide the winner, A opts to withhold the 2¨ and offer another zero-scoring card the 7§. It definitely will benefit A to keep the lowly 2¨ for a situation where the trump suit could potentially win him a trick with a point scoring card of higher rank such as a non-trump A, J, K or Q.

One final comment I would like to add relates to the notion of partnerships in Bixkla. Joe would appear to be quite positive about it being a four-player game with partnerships. In Bixkla as in Briscola, partnerships come into effect when four players sit down to play the game. Partners sit on opposite sides of a table and they are allowed signalling one another in order to coordinate their play during a trick. Signals are normally discrete and while there are specific signals prescribed to indicate particular cards, each partnership may opt to use other signals which do not fall within the norm for this game.

While I do not doubt that Joe might have played Bixkla following the rules indicated above, I need to point out that other fairly reputable sources on the internet have different takes on the subject. At pagat.com for instance It is stated that Bixkla is played with the same ranking and scoring as Briscola that is cards are ranked A-3-K-J-Q-7-6-5-4-2, 8-9 and 10’s being removed from a standard deck. Wikipedia just mentions Bixkla in the passing on one of its pages dedicated to Briscola.  I will definitely keep researching this topic and report any additional information I might happen to come by.


ADDENDUM

A recent discussion with a good friend of mine seems to hint towards a stronger similarity between the Maltese Bixkla and the Italian Briscola. While he has not had the opportunity to play this card game as an adult, from his childhood memories he could recall a lot of signalling going on during the games between partners (played among relatives) which ties in with similar notions I have found in relation to Briscola. He also told me that the 3 of any suit was regarded as a strong card second only to the Ace and that the 8's 9's and 10's were removed from a standard pack of 52 cards in order to play the game. This is by far the closest resemblance to Briscola I have obtained so far. It would be interesting to establish whether one or more variations of Bixkla co-existed locally at any given time. This would explain the first variation I mentioned in this posting. Finding this information is proving a bit difficult because card play with few exceptions is not as popular today as it was in the past.

Read More