Talk:Cribbage

message: Can someone cite the legality of playing cribbage in british pubs for wager? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.92.120 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well section 6 of the 1968 Gaming Act has dominoes and cribbage as exceptions for licensed premises, however the pub could always apply for a license to hold other games - for example a low stakes poker night. However with the new Gambling Act 2005, it seems that dominoes and crib have lost their exclusivity. The new law reads
 Sections 279 & 280: Exempt gaming
 
 706.     This section authorises the provision of gaming facilities on alcohol licensed premises, provided the gaming complies with certain conditions. No further authorisation is required to make the gaming lawful, provided the conditions are complied with.
 
 707.     The conditions are as follows:
 
    * The facilities are limited to equal chance gaming;
 
    * Stakes and prizes for the gaming must not exceed any limits as to value or amount prescribed by the Secretary of State; 
 
    * No amount may be deducted or levied from amounts staked or won; 
 
    * No participation fees may be charged (and this includes membership subscriptions, see section 344(3));
 
    * The games played may only take place on one set of alcohol-licensed premises, i.e. there may not be any linking of games between premises; and
 
    * Children and young people must be excluded from the gaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.71.24 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality of pub play

message: I have played Cribbage for an awful long while and I've never heard of this (removed from the main article):
"In one (unfriendly, but nevertheless common) variation, the non-dealer does not have the right to cut the deck before the deal.  In this variation, the dealer may choose to offer the cut; a naive or inattentive opponent will cut the deck and hand it back, whereupon the dealer immediately pegs one point; a knowledgeable opponent, though, will simply accept the deck, whereupon that player becomes dealer for that hand. Any player can not win the game by "peggin" points into "the hole"."
Cribbage has many optional, local, obsolete and obscure extra rules which I think properly belong on a specialist site - it seems best to me to concentrate here on the basic concepts. Keithlard 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also been playing Crib most of my life and have never heard of this variation (not to deny it can and is played that way somewhere). I agree with your edit, mainly because there is nothing in the article to verify this variation. Agent 86 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether any of us has heard of it or plays it or likes it etc is immaterial. What is needed before this variation gets added back in is a verifyable source. Abtract 11:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any cite for a "go" interupting a run?  The ACC doesn't seem to have anything in their rules regarding it, nor have I seen that rule mentioned anywhere else.  I think the point intended is that runs can't reach back to before the count was reset, but 3, "go", 2, A is still a run if the total remains at 31 or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.84 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a source that says a go interupts a run.  I think that line should be taken out unless someone can give a source.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no dispute about this, except that all three card game rule books that I have say that skunk (or "lurch") occurs at the half-way mark and make no mention of double-skunk. Furthermore, I find on the internet one mention that "standard" cribbage has no skunking. Anyone know the history of when these variations took precedence and seem to have become "standard."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsilbe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious variant rules 

message: "This is regardless of the order of play, as long as no non-run-making card or a "go" stands in the way, so if the cards played are 6,6,4,2,3, then the player who plays the 3 will score three for a run (4,2,3 i.e. 2,3,4). However, if the order is 2,5, "go",6,7, then no points are awarded for the 5,6,7"
:Is there any cite for a "go" interupting a run?  The ACC doesn't seem to have anything in their rules regarding it, nor have I seen that rule mentioned anywhere else.  I think the point intended is that runs can't reach back to before the count was reset, but 3, "go", 2, A is still a run if the total remains at 31 or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.84 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a source that says a go interupts a run.  I think that line should be taken out unless someone can give a source.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "go" interrupting a run

message: "Some cribbage boards are marked with an "S" in place of "90" because a losing player is said to be "skunked" if, when the game ends, that player has 90 or fewer points. (In betting games, this would double the wager; for example, if playing for a quarter per game, then a player who is "skunked" typically owes two quarters)."
:I see no dispute about this, except that all three card game rule books that I have say that skunk (or "lurch") occurs at the half-way mark and make no mention of double-skunk. Furthermore, I find on the internet one mention that "standard" cribbage has no skunking. Anyone know the history of when these variations took precedence and seem to have become "standard."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsilbe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: skunk, double-skunk

message: I've been playing cribbage round English pubs in Oxford and the South East (mostly country pubs) since the 1960s and in 40 years have never come across any game where a flush scored anything. My hunch is that somebody's been trying to humour a poker player who couldn't get the hang of crib! Does anyone have a source for flushes scoring? Cuirmichael 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - you're kidding, right? A flush is definitely part of standard scoring here in the U.S., where I've played it in a half-dozen states since the '60s. For older reference, it is part of the scoring in "Games for Two," by Mrs. Prescott Warren published in the U.S. in 1930 by Harcort, Brace. Perhaps this is an across-the-pond difference that should be mentioned in the article. - DavidWBrooks 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not a pond difference I was taught by my grandmother, a cockney, and a flush was counted even if it didn't include the starter and I can cite "The Penguin Book of Card Games", as British as you can get, edition 1987 page 338 and others.Abtract 23:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a Flush or not

message: A friend and I have developed an 8 card cribbage game for 2 players at present. Each player is dealt 8 cards. Two are put in a crib to yourself and 2 are given to the opponent's crib, thus giving each player a 4 card hand and a 4 card crib. Everything else is played the same as 6 card. The scores are higher and the game is faster.69.144.224.101 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eight card cribbage 

message: Let's work together on this.
#check this before you change my 'their' to avoid the awkward 'his or her'
#heels is when the jack is exposed on the deal but knibs and knobs refers to a jack of trumps exposed some other time (not on the deal turn up). Abtract 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what would you like me to check?Abtract 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked nibs nobs and have corrected accordingly :) Abtract 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to make a big point about this but according to the  American Cribbage Congress, Heels and Nibs are interchangeable for the starter but nobs is unique for other Jacks of trumps ... site is quite clear, and it makes semse otherwise if nobs meant both how would we know which it was?. Your site seems to be a fairly rough commercial site with back of envelope rules ......... Abtract 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't all live in America, but in 30 years of play throughout western Canada I can tell you the interchangeable use of the term is pretty common. However, you're quite correct that verification is important, but I'm not about to go out and check out every book I can on the game so that link had to suffice for now. Agent 86 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that,as I'm sure you well know, is that it is immaterial what you tell me about interchangeabilty or indeed how many years you have played crib, or indeed where you played it ... what is important is what has been published by reputable sources. The ACC is clearly a reputable source, whereas the site quoted to support nobs as an alternative to heels strikes me as being a little amateurish. Here is a professional looking site which only mentions heels http://www.compendia.co.uk/cribbage.htm and this here is another http://www.pagat.com//adders/crib6.html, the Penguin Book of Card Games 1987 also makes no mention of nobs for heels and neither does Card Games by Hubert Phillips 1953. Incidentally I have played crib in western Canada (Edmonton) and I have never heard this usage of nob. I intend to make an edit that reflects this weight of opinion Abtract 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so, despite "weight of opinion" not making the interchangeability of the term untrue. I have never denied that there are organized associations that have an agreed set of rules that do not include the alternate terminology referred to. However, unless players are members of these associations they are not beholden to their lock-step rules. I simply provided evidence for the edit and to show that there is a basis in fact that the term has been and can be used interchangeably. If you re-read my comment it is clear my edit was not based on personal experience. I proffered the comment about variations anecdotally, not in support of the edit or as a source. That all said, I have to agree with Clayton D. Jones and will leave the article to your pleasure. Agent 86 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: A recent edit has made me stand back and think about this article. I believe it is too much like a "how to play manual" and not enough like an encyclopedia article. Also it tries to cover the waterfront and thereby loses its impact. I suggest that the article needs simpifying with fewer examples and much less "how to play" type info, in particular the strategy section should be removed or greatly reduced. Abtract 10:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; chess has a strategy section, and it has been a featured article. For poker, on the other hand, the strategy material and list of hand rankings have been split off into separate articles. Could we do something like that here, creating a separate article ("Cribbage—play and strategy" or similar) for the examples and strategy? Deor 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Form of article

message: While the reference to poker may be unnecessary, I think the initial paragraph as I had it is better.  The point of it should be to give the basic structure of the game.  Listing the ways to score points duplicates information below, provides no real advantage to the reader, and looks rather opaque.  There's no particular reason to include that list in the first paragraph as opposed to, say, a list of cribbage slang.  I will rewrite the paragraph myself for now. HonoreDB 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The initial paragraph 

message: The article already gave "streets" as the name for the rows on a cribbage board, so I added "spilikins" as the name for the pegs.  Dictionary.com defines spilikins as "One of a number of small pieces or pegs of wood, ivory, bone, or other material, for playing a game, or for counting the score in a game, as in cribbage."  Still, my edit keeps being reverted.  Can someone give a reason why a dictionary is not an adequate source?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very good source ... consider putting it in the article as I have done. Abtract 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spilikins 

message: Does this game have to do with the sarcastic honourific "His Nibs"? I notice it redirects here. 81.178.79.253 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Nibs 

message: I have largely re-written the article to make it more encyclopedic and less like a "how to" manual. This has included creating two new articles for Cribbage (strategy) and Cribbage (statistics). Abtract (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: re-write

message: The rules on cutting are incorrect in this article. The cards are supposed to be dealt first, without a cut being offered. This arose as cribbage is a gentlemen's game and no honorable gentleman would dare cheat, therefore it would be insulting to ask for a cut. If the cut is offered or requested, then the opposing (or calling, in multiplayer) player should recieve two points for honor. After the deal and the making of the crib, then deck should be cut by the non-dealer and the top card exposed. If the wrong person cuts (or the dealer exposes without a cut) then the person who was supposed to cut gets two honor points. I've never played with the order presented in this article nor have I talked to anyone plays with any other rules than what I have just stated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.3.2 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuts

message: Just to forestall what looks like an edit war in the making: User:76.15.180.207, although it's true that "whilst" is archaic in American English, it's still very much in use in British English.  Normally, it's not a valid edit to "correct" an article from British spelling to American spelling; especially in an article about a game that is British in origin.  However, that being said, I think it is a better to use "while" here, because that is correct in both British and American usage, and "whilst" reads archaicly to American readers. -- TJRC (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK no problem. Abtract (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "While"/"Whilst" 

message: I see no mention of the muggins rule, which sates that an opponent can claim any score due to a hand  that is not declared by the player.  Is this  common rule? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the article Rules of cribbage, linked from the "Rules" section here. Deor (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muggins 

message: Hello to all. I was looking through some Royal Canadian Legion websites & I noticed one branch listed a night of 10 card crib. As an ex matlot, I played crib by the hour, day , week , month & any other time frame there is but I have never heard of this game before. I am waiting to hear back from the branch but the chair is away. So, I wondered if anyone here has had experience with this game, this 10 card cribbage. My RCL branch, in London,Ontario, was recently visited by the OPP & RCMP in company with a local officer, who told us we were contravening the Ontario crimminal code by having Texas Hold'em games night at the branch. Altho we did not take any rake, because we sold food & beverages to the players, we were making money from the illegal activity. SO close up we did & I have been looking for a suitable replacement game that doesn't contravene the act.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galtio (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 card cribbage. 

message: How can I translate and oublish this page in Spanish? Cribbage is not so common in Spanish Languages countries and I would like to spread this game through Mexico  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiyonor (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts about translation 

message: There are quite a few variants of Cribbage, such as Auction Cribbage or Cut-Throat Cribbage, Solitaire Cribbage and also Seven-Card Cribbage, so would it be too much to ask for an article on these? One of the most popular versions is where three players play and have five cards each, and only put out one for the box. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for article on Cribbage Variants

message: All information from Cribbage (strategy) has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger complete 

message: Would it be beneficial to add a section on tournament cribbage (brief rules amd rules differences from casual cribbage play) to this article? FarScapePhx (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  tournament cribbage section 

message: Under Match -> Match Point Scoring is listed:
Variation of Tournament rules - 2 points(win) - 3 points(skunk) - 4 points(double-skunk) - no extra points (triple-skunk)
I've never come across this variation (it's not used in American Cribbage Congress sanctioned tournaments) and wondered if anyone had some sort of documentation showing that this variation is used on a regular or widespread basis or has experience in tournaments where this is played.  If not, I think we should consider deleting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarScapePhx (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match Point Scoring - variation of tournament rules? 

message: The merger to this article of what was originally a separate article, "Cribbage (strategy)" (modeled on the Chess strategy article), was the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribbage (strategy). Though willing to entertain the idea of the section's removal, I think that its exclusion requires a fresh discussion and a consensus that it's inappropriate. I've therefore undone the summary deletion by Seraphimblade, who is certainly welcome to initiate such a discussion. Deor (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you've already initiated it, and thanks for doing that to explain the revert. The reason this needs to be removed is for the same reason as the previous "strategy" article—while it's alright to have a brief blurb on general strategy if there are sources discussing the game in that vein, a full-blown instruction manual "how to" guide is out of scope. Unfortunately, only a couple of factoids in that section are referenced, and those not referenced all that well, so it appears that section is mostly personal knowledge and unsalvageable. It's also been tagged as problematic for over a year, though only the out of scope/"howto" issue was solved. The fact that it's largely unreferenced and looks to be essentially a personal essay from personal knowledge is the larger issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Please let me know if you have any additional objections, else I'll go ahead with removal later today. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There has to be someone watching this article other than you and me, though they may not have checked the talk page in the last two days. I want to hear from other editors whether they think that a strategy section of any sort is appropriate. If the presence of one is thought to be OK, no doubt the one currently in the article can be referenced and trimmed where necessary. On the other hand, if no one gives a damn, you might as well just delete it. Of the editors who contributed to the relevant "Developing the article" section above, it looks like Abtract is basically inactive and TimR hasn't edited in a few weeks, but I'm unwilling to just cast aside the "merge" result of the AfD when the editors there could easily have voted instead to delete the material. Why not give it a week to see whether anyone else comments here? Deor (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with doing that, but I was also curious if you had any objections to what I'd said beyond the AfD being a merge previously. Perhaps we can agree on something, or at least start down that road while waiting? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the strategy section. Just as in the game of go there are extremely common moves (like ko or snap back) which are not explicitly part of the "rules" which are still mentioned in the go article, a good cribbage player will be familiar with at least the most basics of strategy (not starting the sequence with a 5, not splitting a pair of 7s to the crib etc...). Of course wikipedia isn't a den of gaming strategy but we ought to give room for what is second nature to most players. In my humble opinion. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. The Go material is problematic too, as it doesn't really cite any references. All content must be referenced, and not based on personal knowledge, even if some consider it "second nature". Do you know of any good sources on cribbage strategy that might be worth citing here? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of strategy section

message: How do you cut to 12 from a 8-7-6-2 hand? From my perspective, you can cut to 9 (ace), 10 (5 & 9), 11 (deuce), 14 (6 & 8) and 16 (7) but no 12s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.125.38 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Throwing defensively to the crib 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cribbage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516084713/http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~steve/humor/cribbage.html to http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~steve/humor/cribbage.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Wikipedia article on Sir John Suckling credits him with the invention of cribbage; however, he is not even mentioned in this article. Further research needed? SedonaJon (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor credit