WGR Guide to (some) Card Games
by Michael Keller, except where specified
Part 1: Crazy Eights and its variants
by Donald G. Keller and Michael Keller
Crazy Eights is a family of related folk games, played in many
countries under different names and with different sets of rules.
In the most basic form of the game, each player is dealt a hand (often
seven cards each), and the next card of the stock (upcard) is turned up to start
a match pile. Each player in turn tries to play one of the cards
in their hand to match the upcard in rank or suit. Each
card played becomes the new upcard. A player who cannot play must
draw a card from the stock and pass their turn (or in some variants,
must draw until they get a card they can play -- this adds an unacceptable amount of luck
in my view).
The first player to play all of their cards
wins the round, and other players score (negative) points for the cards
they have left (this can be one point per card, or cards may be worth
different numbers of points). In the specific version called
Crazy Eights, eights are wild and can be played on a player's turn
regardless of the upcard. Many variants turn other ranks
into action cards, allowing a player to skip the next person's turn,
force them to draw cards, or reverse the direction of play.
These effects are quite strategic and give players several ways to stop
a player about to go out. Most other suggested effects are
frivolous, or add an excessive luck element (such as shuffle pressure,
a fatuous rule giving a penalty for having to draw after the stock is
exhausted -- a penalty which doubles every time it occurs).
The most crucial rule for a strategic version of Crazy Eights, in my view, is that
a player may draw or play a card at will, but cannot draw a card
and then play it. (One account actually says that drawing when you can play
is
cheating). This is essential for skillful hand management
(allowing you to preserve critical wild cards for the correct moment),
and
to allow combinations to be set up, particularly in two-handed
or partnership variants.
The games of this family belong to a larger family of games called
shedding games, in which the object is to play or discard all of the
cards in your hand. The
version Mau-Mau described by David Parlett dates back to the 1960's,
and the English commercial version Whot was published in 1935.
Among the many other names and variants are Black Jack (not to be confused with the
casino game also known as Twenty-One), Craits, Crates, Creights, Flaps, Last
Card, Macau, Neuner, Pesten, Rockaway, Swedish Rummy, Switch, Take Two, and Tschausepp. We will not
attempt to enumerate every possible rule variation, but we will reluctantly mention
a variation (or family of variations) called Mao or Bartok, which has
one or both of two characteristics: (1) new players are not told the
rules and must work them out by observation, seeing which plays are
legal and which are not -- rules generally vary from location to
location, and (2) new rules may be added by the winner of each round.
We will describe one version in detail which is
both reasonably skillful, and has similarities to many of the common
variants, both folk and commercial. It later formed the basis of
our two-handed version, described further below.
Super Crazy Eights
described by Donald G. Keller
It was in the early seventies, when I was in college, that I first saw
this game played. I still remember vividly coming into the
student center and seeing three of my friends playing what appeared to
be Crazy Eights, but not only could I not follow the game, I
could not even figure out whose turn it was. They seemed to play
at random, and sometimes picked one card, sometimes more -- and someone
else immediately played. A most mysterious phenomenon; but I
quickly learned the game, and indeed became one of the group's experts,
frequently skipping class on the chance of a good game. Since
this variation transforms a simple child's game into something
altogether more challenging, I felt the rules and strategies to be
worth preserving.
(1) Each game consists of a closed system of fifteen deals,
beginning with each player getting eight cards, reducing by one each
deal to one card, then increasing by one card each deal until eight
cards again. [This
neat feature, absorbed from the game oh hell, gives a variety of
different sorts of
hands, but leaves the most skillful for the end of the game when the
outcome is frequently decided. The claim in some accounts
that one- and two-card deals are the most skillful is nonsense. MK]
(2) The top card of the stock is turned over, and is
treated as a card played by the dealer (2's, 3's, 8's, and A's have the
effects described below). Each player, in turn, starting from the left of the dealer, has to play a card of the same suit or rank as the
previous face-up card.
(3) When a player cannot play, she draws one card and loses her
turn, even if the card drawn allows her to play. A player may choose to
draw a card instead of playing even when she can play.
(4) In addition, courtesy dictates the announcement of "one card"
or "last card" upon the laying down of the penultimate card, and before
the next player has played. Penalty for failure to do so is drawing one
card next turn, even if one could go out.
(5) Eights are wild cards which can be played regardless of the
current face up card, and the player gets to call the next suit
(regardless of the actual suit of the eight).
(6) In addition, when a 2 is played, the next player must
draw two cards and lose her turn, unless she can cover with another 2,
in which case the next player must draw four cards, etc. A deal may not
end with a 2; the next player must cover or draw two. If she covers,
the following player must cover or draw four, etc.
(7) When a 3 is played, the next player's turn is
skipped. A deal may not end with a 3; the next player but one
must play a card or draw one. If she covers with another 3, the
next player but one must play or draw. If a player goes out with
a 2 or 3, and the extended play returns to her by a series of 2's or
3's being played (e.g. if a player goes out with a 3 in a four-handed
game, and the player across from her covers with a 3), she must draw
and the deal continues. Note that 2's and 3's are played just like any
card, following suit or rank.
(8) When the stock is used up, the discard pile, except for the top card,
is reshuffled (without penalty) to form a new stock.
(9) Play ends when one player gets rid of all her cards.
(10) Scoring of cards held at the end of the deal: eights 50,
twos 20, face cards 10, aces 1, other cards face value (3's only count
3).
(11) The winner is the player with the lowest score after 15 deals.
(12)
When an ace is played,
the direction of play (clockwise or counterclockwise) reverses, so that
the previous player plays next. The new direction continues until
another ace is played, which reverses the direction again. A deal may
end in an ace; it need not be covered. [When this article was
first published, this was described as an optional rule, called
Acey-Versey. I now believe it should be a standard rule, as it is
in the two-handed version described below. In regional folk
versions, action cards allowing reversal of direction are more common
(cf. Switch, an English version described in Parlett's book) than those
allowing skipping a player. MK]
Strategy
There are two obvious strategies, namely (a) get rid of all one's
cards, and (b) keep one's hand low in point count. Though these sound
like the same thing, actually they are in some cases mutually
exclusive. Still, I have found that the two can be balanced, along the
following lines:
(1) Follow suit as long as possible, discarding face cards first.
(2) It may be preferable to follow rank with a face card (especially if
one's hand is longer in the new suit) rather than follow suit with a 9
or below.
(3) Hold an 8 as long as possible. Its enormous strategic value,
particularly as a last card, is worth the possible fatal gamble of
being left holding it. It may even be desirable, early in a deal, to
draw for a round (maybe two in a long deal) rather than use it. With
two 8's, hang on to both; there's no better 1-2 finishing punch.
(4) Hold a 2 for several rounds, at least (treating it as a low-count
card); though the gamble is less, its strategic value (since it has to
follow suit) is considerably less. I would never draw rather than play
one.
(5) Hold a 3 (or an ace) until the very end. The
strategic value, though unpredictable, is far higher than the
almost-negligible count.
A
B C D
8 *-- 26
9 11
7 *-- 76
44 21
6 7 126
58 *21
5 10 *126
71 31
4 40 162
96 *31
3
47 176
119 *31
2
78 *176
139 41
1 *78 256
143 51
2 102 267
163 *51
3 126 302
177 *51
4 152 318
*177 61
5 216 340
190 *61
6 217 359
*190 62
7 253 394
237 *62
8 *253 418
278 66
As an example of the efficacy of these strategies, above is the
still-extant scoresheet of a game from that long-ago era, where I was
D. An asterisk means the player went out. Notice that, although I
did go out nearly half the time, the real achievement here is that my
highest point total in any one deal was 11. The magnitude of this can
be gauged by the fact that the other players averaged, in deals where
they did not go out, over 20 points a hand (where I averaged 8.25).
Admittedly, though, this was a fluke; there are three other games on
the same scoresheet, and in the very next game I scored 351 and
finished 4th of 5; my other two scores were 276 and 239 (middle of the
pack). And out of 18 final scores in the four games, only two others
(144 and 147, the last two winners) were under 200.
The inevitable conclusion one comes to is that, however much greater
the scope for strategy is in this variation, one is still subject to
the luck of the draw; even the best player will have games with
inflated scores. But it was my experience that the better players were
able more often to attain those elusive sub-200 scores. In the game
above, I remember C as being a very good player and A as being
excellent, as good or better than I: in fact A won the last two games
on that old sheet. Notice that A was ahead for the first four hands,
and kept it close for another four.
The other drawback of the game to note is that it is rarely close; the
outcome is usually not in doubt much past the middle of the game. (I do
remember one game in which the final score was 299-300-300, with the
winner coming from last to win, but that was as much a fluke as the
above.)
Let us follow a typical game a little more closely, beginning with the
8 hand. Parenthesized cards are those drawn rather than played.
The letter following an 8 is the suit called. An exclamation point is a
declaration of "one card". Tens are designated T. This game is played
without the Acey-Versey (aces reversing direction) rule. Here's how the
first few deals went:
South
dealer. S8 turned up.
N E S
W
S
2 6 J93 T
H
5 KT74 9
JA
C
K43 76 2A
J
D
K82 J 54
Q97A
West can play any card in hand on the turned-up 8...
QD
KD KH 9H JH
East decided to go with longest suit rather than play a singleton.
5H TH (QC) TS
Notice North playing a low card rather than use an 8; West changes suits with a ten rather than play an ace.
2S (AS,TC) 2C (QS,8C)
Play your 2's when you can...
KC TC QC JC
4C 7C AC AD
2D (9C,5C) 5D 9D
After sticking East with a 2, North courteously does not play a 3 the
next two plays, allowing East to get rid of two cards; then has no
choice but to play another 2. Now is the time to play the
long-held
8.
8D/C! 9C 9S QS
South is given the opportunity to make a smart play, changing the
suit North had called on 'one card.' Knowing this, West makes a
nervy play and holds the 8 another
round.
(3H) 6S JS 8C/D
(6D) JD 4D 7D!
6D 6C (TD) (8H)
3C! -- 3S
--
3H -- (6H)
And
a deadly crossfire of 3's ends the deal, leaving East and West without
recourse. (South had to draw after North went out with a
3). West's gamble paid off momentarily, but the drawn 8 was
fatal.
Scoring:
N E S W
-- AS 6H AH
7H TD 8H
9C
0 17 16 51
Here's how the first few deals went:
8 *-- 17
16 51
7
*-- 34 33 59
6
10 70 94 *59
South got
caught with an 8 this time.
5 13 110
*94 61
4
*13 150 104 110
West
ended up holding a pair of 2's.
3 *13
157 118 120
2 36 171
188 *120
Unlucky South was caught
with another 8. On
the 1 card hand, East dealer, the draw was:
2S 9H QH 3D
With 5H up, South went out immediately,
leaving North with a 2.
1 56 180
*188 123
2 66
*180 218 139
3 96
188 245 *139
4 116 240 *245 155
5 124 273
*245 196
6
155 280 *245 202
7 195 *280
251 210
Suddenly the game is
very close. Here's the final hand (6D up):
S K9 8 T 65
H Q32 T74 J6A K8
C
4 T2 98A 63
D K9
7A J Q5
Play:
7D JD QD
KD AD AH KH
2H 2C (@) 3C
(@) South draws 7S, 4S, 9H, 2C.
-- TC 9C 6C
4C 4H JH 8H/S
KS 8S/H 8C/D 5D
9D (AS) 2D (JC,2S)
(4D) (TD) (JS) 2S
(KC,7C) AS JS 6S
9S (QC) TS 5S!
(3D) (3S) 7S (8D)
7C QC AC JC!
KC 5C (QS) 8D
So West, given the golden opportunity, is able to slip past North to win the deal and the game.
Scoring:
N E S W
3H 7H 4S --
QH TH QS
3D 3C 6H
4D 5C 9H
TD
20 35 29 0
8 215 315 270 *210
Super Crazy Eights for Two
developed by Donald and Michael Keller
Most versions of Crazy Eights are unsatisfactory for two players. Two hands are not enough to
let action plays have their full effect; the ace reversal is not
operative, while twos and threes favor the player holding them to an
unbalanced degree.
In 1993, after playing a six-player game, we discussed the possibility
of a two-player version. We realized that it was necessary to add at
least one extra hand; at first we tried dealing three hands, one of
them face-up. We made the extra hand a neutral one, to be played by the
player preceding it in the current direction of play (initially
clockwise, reversed by the play of an ace). This allowed twos to have
their desired effect on the opponent, but the asymmetry still made the
play unbalanced. Since the player playing the neutral hand had a
temporary advantage, we added a fourth hand on the opposite side. In
bridge terms, we sat North and South with open (face-up) hands East and
West. We tried with the neutral hands played before our own hands as
well as after, and even briefly added a fifth hand. None of these,
however, had the feel of the multi-player game; the neutral hands
seemed unimportant, and even acted as unwanted buffers between the
'real' hands.
Finally Donald hit on what should have been an obvious solution: four
hands, but with open hands no longer neutral. Instead of sitting
between two neutral hands, we sat adjacent to each other with open
hands belonging to us dealt opposite our concealed hands. This, it
turns out, is similar to the double-dummy version of Honeymoon Bridge.
Donald sat South, and dealt himself a concealed hand at South and an
open hand at North. I sat West, recieving a concealed hand at West and
an open hand at East. We alternated deals, changing places after every
pair of deals to equalize the orders of play.
A few deals told us that this version had the desired effect. We
allowed a player to go out in either hand, and thus twos and threes had
their full effect on either opposing hand. We also allowed a player
free choice of plays in dummy (open hand), except that the dummy was
not permitted to draw if any card could be played. This allowed a
player to make a variety of forcing plays through the opponent's dummy
(see section (B) below).
Donald suggested, after an early deal in which I went out in my hand,
that he be allowed to let either of his two hands count against him, or
to let both count against him, and my dummy count against me. We also
agreed that when a player went out in dummy, all hands should
count. Since it is harder to go out in dummy (the opponent can
see what suit is left and more easily prevent it), there is an extra
bonus in doing so (denying the opponent the choice in scoring).
One goal in play, therefore, is to go out in dummy with a minimum count
in your own hand, catching the opponent with scores (preferably large
ones) in both hands. An odd paradox soon surfaced, however. I reduced
to one card in dummy, but still held an eight in my concealed hand. At
dummy's turn, I was required to play my last card, sticking myself with
50 points! I stopped the deal and proposed an exception: the dummy
should be allowed to draw when reduced to one card, even if that card
could be played. Going out should be completely voluntary in both
hands. This seemed to fit in well with the other rules.
We made no further changes, completing the game in progress and two
more games before declaring the variation satisfactory. Summarizing the
new rules as we finally reached them:
(1) All rules follow those described above, except as amended below.
(2) The rule that Aces reverse the direction of play is always
observed in the two-handed game.
(3) Players sit in adjacent positions (South and West). Four hands are
dealt in each of the fifteen deals, following the same progression from
eight-card hands to one-card hands and up to eight again. The players
alternate in dealing. Face-up hands (called dummies) are dealt to the
North and East positions, regardless whether South or West is dealing.
After every pair of deals, the players exchange seats (this balances
the relative positions of players and dummies. It's also funnier
if anyone is watching).
(4) The exposed North dummy is controlled by the player sitting South,
and the exposed East dummy by the player sitting West. Any legal card
may be played from a dummy hand, but dummy may not draw a card instead
of playing (or draw two or more cards instead of playing another two)
if a legal play is available, except to avoid going out as described in
rule 5.
(5) When reduced to one card, a dummy hand may draw instead of going
out, at the controlling player's option.
(6) The call of "one card" or "last card" is obligatory for a closed
hand. The same call should be made out of courtesy for a dummy
hand, but no penalty is given for failing to make the call.
(7) When any of the four hands goes out, the deal ends. If a dummy hand
goes out, all points in the remaining three hands count against the
controlling players. If a concealed hand goes out, the opponent may
choose to:
(a) count all three remaining hands, or
(b) count either of his own hands against him and nothing against the
player who went out.
If more than one hand goes out by means of extended play (playing on
twos and threes after one hand has gone out), all remaining hands count
against their owners.
This game has much of the same feel of the multi-handed game, but
actually seems to have a higher proportion of skill. Virtually all of
the plays in the multi-player game are possible here. Because of the
scoring rule (7), management of both hands is of crucial importance. A
few observations may be in order:
(A) Keep an eye open for combination plays. Exchanges of several threes
between one's two hands (preventing the opponent from playing either
hand) or crossfires of several twos (South plays a two, West draws two,
North plays another two, East draws two) are very
satisfying. One play I found very useful is (for example)
playing a card from East in a suit in which I hold an ace in the West
hand. If South is forced to draw, I play an ace to reverse back to
South, and more often than not he will have to draw again.
(B) Combinations through the opposing dummy are especially useful, as
many forcing plays are possible:
a. Knocking out eights by playing a suit in which dummy is void.
b. Forcing dummy to make a desired change in suit, by playing a
rank which dummy holds.
c. Forcing dummy to play a two, allowing a second (or third) two
to be played to the opponent's concealed hand, making the opponent draw
four or six cards (this can backfire).
d. Forcing dummy to play a three or ace to skip one's own hand or
dummy which is unable to play.
(C) A concealed hand may draw two cards in response to a two, even when
holding a two of its own (dummy must play a two unless it is dummy's
last card). E.g., South plays a two on West, who holds a two himself
but can see a third two in the North dummy. West may choose to draw two
cards (saving his two for later) -- and presumably two more to the East
dummy after North plays a two -- instead of playing his two and drawing
six cards to East.
(D) The ability to reverse the direction of play allows much more scope
in play. For example, if West (concealed) and North (dummy) hold twos,
West hopes to turn the play counterclockwise and force (or entice)
North to play its two on West, who can then play another on South.
(E) Whether or not to go out is sometimes an important decision; there
may be an element of risk in some cases. Consider the game score --
when ahead, it's usually wise to go out whenever safe, even if the gain
is small. Which hand(s) to count is a simple matter of point counting,
but affects strategy.
(F) A player trailing by a large enough margin should not be shy about
resigning the game. The scores in one of our test games differed by one
point with two deals left (finishing at 337-392), but another resulted
in a score of 255 to 554, with the winning player going out in all but
two deals. If playing a series of games, a doubling cube (as in
backgammon) can be added, allowing the player leading to double the
stakes. We suggest that a resignation should be worth 200 points (times
the current cube level) to the doubling player.
(G) In scoring, we used three symbols to indicate how a player went
out, showing whether the player went out in hand or in dummy, and
whether the opponent chose one hand or three hands when the player went
out in hand. These symbols may be useful in compiling statistics on the
game. In 195 deals over 13 games, there have been:
91 deals in which a player went out in dummy, counting all three
remaining hands (the player going out averaging about 21 points, the
opponent 60)
90 deals in which a player went out in hand and the opponent chose to
count one of his own hands (averaging about 16 points)
13 deals in which a player went out in hand and the opponent chose to
count all three remaining hands (averaging 48 points for two hands
against the opponent's 32 for one hand). In a few instances, the player
going out actually came out behind.
1 deal in which a player went out in both hands, counting both of the
opponent's hands for 34 points.
The average score for a hand has been about 25 points; the winner of
each game has averaged 316, the loser 442. Donald holds the low
game record of 211, winning by 92 points despite going out in only 6
out of 15 hands (He never took more than 42 points in a hand)!
We have played the game on numerous subsequent occasions, including
with a six-suited Sextet deck, and have continued to find it as
absorbing and challenging -- if not more so -- than the multi-player
version we also continue to play.
Some commercial versions of crazy eights
I collected these for a while in the 1980's and 1990s; I imagine some of them are now quite rare.
Hot Death Uno! -- published on the internet, date and inventor(s) unknown
This is not a commercial version, but a truly demented Uno variant which has floated
around the Internet for decades; one account says it was originated by some students at Penn
State University (University of Dayton in another). Regardless of who came up with the original idea and name, new action cards have been added by many people since it first
appeared. It has been distributed as both
a Windows app and as a set of files allowing you to print your own
cards (or mark up existing Uno sets; you need as many as 3 extra
decks). It's wildly tasteless and politically incorrect; some of the
dozens of action cards have extreme effects: e.g., forcing a player to
draw 69 cards, or causing yourself
and any other player of your choice to quit the hand and take all of
the penalty points left in your hand. One drawback
is that the normal cards are almost insignificant because there are too
many special cards, and some of these cause much larger penalties. It can be fun but is extremely random.
In Your Face! -- 1993, The Incredible Game Company
In Your Face!, devised by Mike Agrelius, is another modern adaptation of crazy eights (with a
bit of Milles Bornes thrown in?), and probably the best of the
commercial versions -- it is the only such version I am aware of which
does not allow a player to draw and play.
The deck contains four colored suits of nine cards
each. Each color contains one duplicate card; playing
a card
matching in both color and number gains an extra turn. In
addition
there are 13 face cards which can be played on any card -- a player
playing a face card chooses any opponent to take the indicated action
(lose a turn, draw 1 or 3 cards). But the deck also has six In
Your
Face! cards, which let a player holding one to turn the tables, forcing
the player who played the original face card to take the action
himself. The
rules leaflet for In Your Face! encourage players to gang up on the
player in the lead (though vendettas are also common); indeed, that
player has a large purple pawn in front of her so everyone knows who it
is. In Your Face! is a nice family game, but can also be played
strategically; it is superior in my view to Uno and most of the other
folk and
commercial versions (though I still prefer Super Crazy
Eights). It's also very nicely produced, with two
decks of cards; pawns to mark
the current leader, dealer, and players missing their next turns; and a
short promotional video.
King's Court -- 1983, Janjohn Games
A medieval fantasy-themed varation by John Johnson, with some unusual action cards. Thanks to Nick Sauer, who lent us his copy, we were able to try King's Court at a games weekend in 1997. This is an
entertaining, if somewhat overwhelming, version: there are no less than
fourteen different cards with special effects (and sometimes
cross-effects when one special card is played in response to
another). In fairness, the cards are nicely made, and all of the
special cards have explanations printed directly on them. Still, the
rules run four pages of fairly small print, and are a mixture of
interesting and silly ideas: one rule allows the dealer a bonus if he
can cut exactly the right number of cards to deal each player seven
cards. The Wizard card is perhaps too powerful: it allows a player
to change suit, force another player to draw five cards, and play an
extra card. Most of the effects are a mixture of the usual
features: skipped turns, forced draws, changes of suit, and protection
against other effects. Several cards allow a player to play extra
cards: a Fair Maiden cannot be played alone, but must be followed
(whether one or a number of Fair Maidens are played at once) by a
"proper escort" (a legal card of the same suit or a wild card).
Perhaps the most interesting card is Magic Potion: this card cannot be
played except to go out (i.e. it must be the last card in a player's
hand), but if held by a player after someone else goes out, it erases
all of that player's Scroll (special) cards for scoring (at least 20
points each, these can add up to a large number of points). King's
Court is enjoyable, though hard to take seriously as a strategic game
because of a rather high luck element. It's rare enough to be worth
grabbing up if you see a copy, and some of the ideas could be borrowed
as house rules to make a homebrewed version of crazy eights.
Mad Magazine Card Game -- 1979, Parker Brothers
Family game for 2-6 players, with four suits which are actually suits:
Alfred E. Neuman is shown wearing a leisure suit, a space suit, a union
suit, and a suit of armor. There are quite a few action cards,
including two defensive What Me
Worry? You Worry card, four Draw
1 you varmints card which forces every other player to draw a
card, and a Joker which allows a player to end the game (presumably
when in the lead) if they hold no more than 3 other cards.
Obviously not a version for serious play.
Mork & Mindy -- 1979, Parker Brothers
Variant themed to the popular sitcom, including a special Mork card
which forces every player to try to grab an egg from the middle (there
is at least one fewer egg than the number of players; players who end
up without an egg must draw two cards). This is taken from the
game Spoons, which uses a completely different mechanism from Crazy
Eights, although www.pagat.com includes a description of a folk version
of Crazy Eights called Spoons which is similar to Mork & Mindy.
Nerves Breåk Döwn -- 1995, Cobra I Games
An independent production by Ernesto Mendoza, Nerves Breåk Döwn is a gimmicky version, rather plainly produced
-- the cards are coated on the back, rather than both sides as
professionally produced cards are, and are a bit harder to handle and
likely to wear out quickly. Most of the effects are conventional, but
two new ones allow a player to discard either four cards of a
particular suit, or all of his cards of a particular suit. Thus a
seemingly large hand can go out all at once -- strategic planning,
which depends on estimating how soon others may go out, is nearly
impossible. The deck is top-heavy with special cards: 56 out of the
88 cards have special effects (almost twice the usual proportion of
about one-third) -- even worse if you add the booster packs. Don't ask me why it's spelled that
way.
Spaced Out -- 1984, Marsyl
A space-themed version with a deck of 108 cards, and two different piles which may be played to under certain conditions.
Taki -- 1983, Shafir Games
A commercial version by Israeli game inventor Haim Shafir.
The Totally Insane Card Game -- 1993, Gary and Susan Fowler
Another independent production with a deck of 200 cards, less than half
of which are plain numbered cards. Provides four copies of
a useful Quick Reference Guide, which runs both sides of two cards
(there are almost 30 kinds of action cards). It is designed for up to 12 players. The many effects
include giving or taking cards from other players, trading entire
hands, ending the hand immediately, and a card which cannot be played
except to go out. Like several other versions, it is too chaotic
to be played strategically, but is fun for a light game, and a good
source of homebrew ideas.
UNO -- 1971, International Games
The most famous and
successful commercial version, devised in 1971 by
Merle Robbins, and continues to sell well for Mattel. It has been in
continous production for fifty years, and hundreds of alternate
editions have been published, many themed to movies, TV shows, and other popular culture.
In some respects Uno is quite similar to Super Crazy Eights
(it's clearly derived from some similar folk predecessor),
though the changes are not beneficial and as usual add luck: a player
may draw a card and play it, and there are four excessively powerful
Wild Draw Four cards which allow both a change of suit and a forced
draw (by comparison King's Court has only one Wizard card). In
addition to official editions, many of which have new cards and rules,
Uno has spawned a large number of unofficial variants.
Whot -- 1935, Storey & Company
Possibly the first commercial variant, developed by William Henry
Storey in England. It was published for decades by Waddingtons, and is reportedly highly popular in Nigeria.
Bibliography
McLeod, John -- www.pagat.com includes descriptions of, and links to, many different variants.
Morehead, Albert H., Richard L. Frey, and Geoffrey Mott-Smith -- The New Complete Hoyle Revised , 1991, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-24962-4, 692 pp., hardback, $25.95
Eights (a bland version with the unlimited draw rule) is described on
pp. 296-297. Craights, a version popular among bridge players, is
described on pp. 298-300. (The authors say that kibitzers are not
allowed to be told the rules, seemingly not noticing how publishing the
rules in a major reference work might be construed as violating that
prohibition). It resembles the game described in the Parker article and the Rigal book below.
Parker, Joshua B. - Creights, Games Magazine, March 1984, pp. 52-53.
This article describes an even wilder variation of Crazy Eights in
which every spot card has a special function. It adds a tremendous amount of
luck to the game, producing a game which is fun, but much lower in
skill than Super Crazy Eights.
Parlett, David -- A Dictionary of Card Games, 1992, Oxford University
Press, ISBN 0-19-869173-4, 360pp., paperback, $11.95
Gives rules for Neuner and Mau-Mau (pp. 164-166); Switch (pp. 291-292).
Rigal, Barry -- Card Games For Dummies, 1997, IDG Books, ISBN
0-7645-5050-0, 345pp., paperback, $16.99
Chapter
14, Eights, pages 201-208, describes Eights and several of its
variants, including a mention of the secretive Chicago-area variant
Crates. Another account of Crates and some variants is given on John McLeod's Pagat site.
Part 2: Hearts
and its variations (including Barbu)
Black Spy -- invented by Alan Moon, published 1981 by Avalon Hill, out
of print [reviewed by Kevin Maroney in WGR13, February 1998]
This simple variant of hearts can be played by three to six players
(although four or five are best), cutthroat, using a non-traditional
60-card, five-suited deck. The cards are numbered 1 through 11 in each
of the colored suits (red, green, yellow, blue, and black), with five
additional black 7's, called spies. The deck is dealt out completely,
and after a 'pass' of three cards to the left, the eldest hand leads to
a trick. Each player must follow if possible, matching either the suit
or number of the first card played. There is no trump; the highest card
of the suit led takes the trick. Black cards are worth points, which
are to be avoided. Simple optional rules add negative points (the other
7's are 'good' spies), shooting the moon, a more varied pass, the
dealer's option for calling the first trick suit, and a reward for
reaching certain exact point values. (Another optional rule, which
allows players to follow the number played by the previous players,
changes the flavor and play of the game tremendously and is not
recommended by this reviewer.)
The main reason I prefer Black Spy to hearts is the scoring. In hearts
(as I have always seen it played), each heart counts 1 adverse point
and the queen of spades counts 13. This means that the Q of spades
counts for as many points as the hearts do altogether, and it is not
uncommon for an early, safe lead (say the five of clubs on the third
trick) to result unforseeably in the hapless player taking the Q of
spades and gaining more points than a player who takes nine of the
remaining ten tricks. In Black Spy, the six black 7's are each worth 10
points, and the other black cards are worth, variously, 1 to 5 points,
for a total of 80 points. Thus, no single card accounts for more than
13 percent of the points in a round, and while it is not unknown for a
player to take half the points in a single trick, it is much less
common than the comparable situation in hearts, and almost impossible
to do without a simply dreadful hand. This division of the points leads
to more equitable and skillful play.
Unfortunately, Black Spy has been out of print for a number of years;
if you ever see a copy, grab it up. With the recent surge in popularity
of proprietary card games, I am amazed that no one has bought the
rights to reprint this neglected masterpiece.
[Black Spy was republished as Gespenster by Hexagames in 1990. It is back in print again as Black Spy, from Z-Man Games.]
In the first issue of WGR, in September 1983, we published Scott
Marley's short-deck adaptation of Barbu, called Guillotine.
This was later republished by Games Magazine. Barbu was not
well-known in most circles at the time, but is quite popular
nowadays, and is usually played with a full 52-card deck. As
usual many variations have been developed. A good survey can be
found on John McLeod's Pagat site.]
Part 3: Struggling Upstream
by Michael Keller
(This article appeared in an earlier form in WGR13 (p.17) in
February 1998. It has been modified for this page.)
This is a popular folk game, spread mostly word of
mouth, with many variants and many different names. Unfortunately
some of the names are not mentionable in polite company,
usually derisive names for the lowest ranking player. Some of the
more polite names I have seen are President, Tahimi or Dahimi, Kings
and Peasants, Class Struggle, etc. John McLeod's site
has a good summary of the many variations; he classifies this family as
climbing games.
He introduced it to the U.K. in 1979 after a trip to China; his circle
of British players calls it Pits. In China the game is called
Zheng
Shàngyóu, one of whose
translations is Struggling Upstream,
a squeaky clean and descriptive name which I will henceforth use here.
Before we go any further, here's a rough description of a simple
generic struggling game, as an example of what we're talking
about. Use a full 52-card deck with two jokers added; K
ranks
highest, A lowest. Up to about six players can
play. Deal the
entire deck out; it doesn't matter if some players receive extra
cards. The player to dealer's left (this will be the King in
later
rounds) plays first -- he may play a single card, or any number of
cards of the same rank (including jokers if desired). The player
to
his left may either play an equal number of cards of a higher rank, or
pass (a player may pass and play again later on the same 'trick' if
play comes around to her again.) When every one
except the last
player to play passes in turn, the trick ends; this may take several
times around the table. The player who played last leads again to
a
new trick.
The first player to run out of cards becomes King and scores 1
point for each player still holding cards, but the trick still
continues (if no one else can play, the player to the new King's left
leads to a new trick). As players run out of cards, they take on
successively lower ranking titles (e.g. Prince, Noble, Knight) and
score diminishing numbers of points. The last player with cards
becomes Peasant, the lowest rank. On successive deals,
players change seats, sitting in rank order,
so that King plays first and Peasant (who shuffles and deals)
last. After the cards are dealt, the Peasant gives his two
highest ranking
cards (but not jokers) to the King, who gives the Peasant any two cards
in return. The second-highest and second-lowest ranked
players
exchange one card in the same way. Play either a fixed
number of
rounds or to a set point total. This is an entertaining
game with
some interesting problems both in the play of individual hands (do I
lead a low-ranking single card or start off with three of a kind?) and
overall strategy (should a low-ranking player play conservatively to
try and move up a spot or two, or take a risk to try and go out first
and leap all the way to King?).
Oriental versions of the game usually allow other card
combinations (from sequences of cards sometimes all the way up to
five-card poker hands) -- I prefer the game without these extra
combinations, as it reduces the luck element slightly. David Parlett
describes a westernized version from France in A Dictionary of Card
Games, but a more Oriental version in Teach Yourself Card Games and
Games & Puzzles (see
Bibliography). There are also compound
tricktaking games such as Zheng Fen, which use similar mechanics, but
where the object is to capture cards for points. Tichu,
a commercial variant devised in 1991 by Urs Hostettler, is a
four-handed partnership game based on Zheng Fen. It has proved
extremely popular and has been published continuously, though by 14
different publishers.
Gang of Four -- inventor uncredited, published 1991 by The Game
Dealers, about $10 as import
Das Große und das kleine A -- invented by Wolfgang Kramer, published
1996 by Amigo, about $12 as import
Hollywood Poker -- inventor uncredited, published 1994 by Fun
Connection, about $10 as import
Karriere Poker -- inventor uncredited, published 1988 by Hexagames, out
of print
Zillionaire -- inventor uncredited, published 1987 by Milton Bradley,
out of print
Quite a few commercial versions of the game have
appeared.
The
oldest I am aware of is Zillionaire,
Milton Bradley's version for up to
six players, a pleasant version with ranking cards to indentify the
players and a few special function cards to spice up the
play.
Karrierepoker is a version for
up to eight players, originally released
by Hexagames and later by Fun Connection as Hollywood Poker (this has
the nice side benefit of being usable as a five-, six-, seven-, or
eight-suited deck for other card games). Recent versions
have
included Das Große und das Kleine A
(not a deck of cards for the easily
offended) and Gang of Four.
It also appears as a variant game, Power
Broker, in Mayfair Games' celebrity rummy card game Power Lunch.
There was a Windows computer version called President, by Lost
Shaker Productions, around 1998; this is long gone. It used a
standard
deck, but with two unusual features: playing the same rank as the
previous player is legal and skips the next player's turn; playing a
two stops the current sequence and allows the player playing it to
start a new sequence. Since twos are routinely taken from
lower
players by higher players before play begins, the President and Vice
President have an easier time holding their seats than in most versions.
The Great Dalmuti -- designed by Richard Garfield, published 1994
& 1995 by Wizards of the Coast, $7.95
The Great Dalmuti is
the name of a folk version, which Richard Garfield (of Magic: The Gathering
fame) learned as a
graduate student in about 1989. He believes the word Dalmuti (the
name of the highest ranking player in that version) may have come from
the Japanese name Dai Hin Min ("very poor man"), undergoing a reversal
of meaning in the process. His description in Cryptych (see
Bibliography) is similar to Oriental versions, but in the process of
playtesting the commercial version it was westernized by dropping the
play of sequences. Garfield has been widely criticized for
calling
The Great Dalmuti "A Richard Garfield Game", and Wizards of the Coast
have been likewise criticized for publishing a version of a game many
people were familiar with. This is a naive view: game companies
are
in the business of selling games, and publication of traditional and
folk games (and even forgotten commercial games) is a longstanding
practice which is at least condoned (Yahtzee, Uno, Parcheesi, Othello, and
Pente, to name just
a few). And where was the same criticism when Karriere Poker
and the others came
out? More to the point, Garfield came up with an innovation which
I
think improves the game significantly: The Great Dalmuti uses an 80-card deck
with a triangular structure: there is only one 1 (the Great Dalmuti,
the highest ranking card), two 2's (Archbishops), and so on, up to
twelve 12's (Peasants); there are also two Jesters (which are not wild: they rank lowest).
This has
several effects: having five or six of a kind presents interesting
tactical problems (should they be played all at once or broken up
somehow?), and hands tend to be more balanced -- there are fewer really
excellent or terrible hands. This gives the Peons a better chance
to
move up, and challenges the Greater and Lesser Dalmutis to hold their
positions. The Great Dalmuti is subtitled "Life isn't fair...",
but
this is probably the fairest version of the game. The artwork is
beautiful, and it certainly is more colorful to play with than a
standard deck. The large deck makes the game playable by up
to 8
players, and with fewer players, makes the game even more skillful by
making each player's hand larger. The first edition was
justly criticized for having hard-to-read
indices on the cards; the second edition uses a much better
typeface. The newer rules booklet also includes some
brief
historical notes on the game by Garfield, plus rules translations in German, Spanish, and French.
Bibliography
Garfield, Richard -- Great
Dalmuti, Cryptych,
Vol.1 Num.5, March/April 1994, pages 23-24.
Great Dalmuti as Richard Garfield originally learned it.
Parlett, David -- A Dictionary of Card Games, 1992, Oxford University
Press, ISBN 0-19-869173-4, 360pp., paperback, $11.95
Trouduc (pp. 316-319). (Not a very nice word in French).
Parlett, David -- Teach Yourself Card Games, 1994, NTC Publishing, ISBN
0-8442-3685-3, 316pp, paperback, $8.95
The Bum Game (chapter 31, pp. 267-273)
Parlett, David -- Carte Blanche, Games & Puzzles 1 (new series), April 1994
Bottom of the Heap, pp. 8-9. Another account of the
Bum Game.
Rigal, Barry -- Card Games For Dummies, 1997, IDG Books, ISBN
0-7645-5050-0, 345pp., paperback, $16.99
Chapter 17, "President", pages 233-242, describes a number of Upstream
variants.
This article is
copyright ©2024 by Michael Keller. All rights reserved.
This file was revised on June 2, 2024.