Talk:Rook (card game)

Merge

Suggest merge Rook (card game) and Rook playing cards. Snowman 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove local variations

Many of the local variations documented here don't seem to be verifiable, e.g. Robinson Rook (supposedly "Popularized by the legendary Lamond "Hap" Robinson" of whom I could no find mention elsewhere), Woodson Patrick Rook, Stevenson Rook, Martin-Lawson Rook, Potts-Altimus Rook. The information is also presented in a very inconsistent format. I recommend that all these local variations be deleted. Some of the linked sites do a much better job of describing the variations. If variations are going to be mentioned on this page, they should be the official ones documented in sources like Rook in a Book, eg Kentucky Discard, 1-High Partnership, Dixie, Display, Boston. Proposal: I propose removing the local variations listed on this page. Gregorytopov 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Variations

I have removed the multitude of unverifiable local variations, and replaced them with the main variants described and verifiable from printed sources, e.g. Rook in a Book. --Gregorytopov 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I just read over the page and was curious to find that my variant of the game is not mentioned at all; I was curious to see how many other people played a version similar to mine, and whether it is worth adding. My version is a "call partner" version where the player who takes the bid calls a single card not in their hand and will be partnered with the holder of that person (who will not reveal themselves until the card is played) for the hand. It is played with a variable nest depending on how many players are present, all cards in the deck are used, aces are high and worth 15 points, 10 points are awarded for taking the last trick, and the Rook card is a 10.5 of trump. Has anyone else played such a version? lelandpaul 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are countless house rules for playing Rook, and the variation you mention does seem to pop up occasionally. I wouldn't suggest adding it to the page for the following reason: at one time the Rook page listed nearly all the variations, and quickly became a jumbled mess because everyone and his cousin played it slightly differently. Currently the page reflects the official variations, and is reflective of the ways the game is most commonly played. It's not the first time I've heard of the Rook = 10.5 trump mind you - that variant is also documented here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/146700 http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/161213 For a good overview of the more official ways of playing the Rook card, see these two pages: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/185722 http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/185828 I'd humbly submit that the combination of variants possible are too many to enumerate individually on Wikipedia, and that the current article is sufficient. Gregorytopov 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I definitely agree that listing all possible variations, especially the small local ones, would make for an overly cluttered article. I wonder, however, about expanding/changing the "Other variants" section to include a list of the various possible alternative rules (rather than alternative versions). For instance, one list element might be an explanation of Rook-high vs. Rook-low vs. Rook-middle variation, while another might be an explanation of call-partner vs. fixed equal partners vs. fixed unequal partners (ie. whether a six-person game has one variable partnership versus four players, one fixed partnership versus four players, or two teams of three, all of which I've seen as attested versions). This way we could at least account for more of the variation in play without necessarily having to list the versions of, like you said, everybody and his cousin.

As a personal side-note, I continue to find it a little surprising that the call-partner variant is as rare as it is – it was the aspect of the game which originally attracted me to Rook over other trick-taking games, and still seems to me to be one of the more unique aspects. I didn't realize until very recently that not only was it unofficial, but even highly non-standard.lelandpaul 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, here are the variations I'm familiar with from US Mennonite circles. I'm not sure of this being written down anywhere, but it's widespread enough that I've rarely come into conflict or found someone who plays vastly differently.

• Use the cards from 5-14 and the 1, plus of course the Rook
• The one is high (effectively, a 15)
• The rook is at 10.5, and becomes trump (and may not be played out of suit) -- some people play with rook high, but that's regarded as for children or beginners.
• 5 scores 5 points, 10 and 14 score 10 points, 1 scores 15 points, Rook scores 20
• Last trick takes the kitty (but no bonus points)
• Bidding starts at 90 (although typically 100), and goes to 180.
• Partners with the person across from you. While bidding, if an opponent bids, your partner bids up, and the next opponent passes, you may "check" -- opting to not increase your partner's bid but not removing yourself from the bidding. If the first opponent passes, your partner takes the bid; if they bid up, your partner may then either bid or pass, leaving you to also either bid or pass.
• Person taking the bid starts play, not left-of-dealer
• Play to 1000

The combination of rook at 10.5, rook played in suit, and a little more nuance in bidding and points makes for a much more strategic game than the standard "Kentucky rook".

We also play a call-partner variant, but only with five (or sometimes six) players. This is as described in the article, but with the basic rules above.

There are also a multitude of not-necessarily-agreed-upon rules about what constitutes a redeal (no point cards in your hand, nothing over ten...) or "shooting the moon" (if someone bids 180, respond by bidding 360, must call trump before picking up the kitty or can't pick up the kitty at all....). Some people play Rook low, below all other trump, but I think this is rare.

Matthew Miller (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rook and tarot

Standard playing cards are not derived from tarot cards. The Rider-Waite Tarot, the first tarot for English speakers, was not yet created in 1906. On a rather ironic note, Rook's game rules are quite similar to the rules of tarot card games and, by coincidence I assume, the so-called "minor arcana" of tarot, has the same 4x14 structure as the Rook deck. Smiloid 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarot cards predate the Rider-Waite Tarot by several centuries. You're right that standard playing cards (poker cards) are not based on the Rider-Waite Tarot; but it's solidly documented that poker cards are based on earlier tarot cards. Note that early tarot cards were used for gambling games, and not for divination. It's accurate to say that poker cards are not based on occult tarot cards. Occult use of tarot cards predates Waite too, though; Waite was documenting and expanding an existing tradition, not cooking up something entirely original. 67.158.66.240 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

very true. I have done a lot of research on cards and have found huge amounts of speculative rubbish regarding the "occult" origins of the tarot, much of which is mutually exclusive. It is difficult to discern from Kaplan, that the cards of the Marseilles type were simply unfamiliar Italian Suited Tarock cards imported to France by travelers. Cards themselves have been used for divination with or without pictures. The Lenormand style sybillia cards with their meanings. That said standard rook cards can be used for divination the same way, once it is understood which system the diviner uses for interpretation. Red5 means dark man etc. sorry, for jumping in this. I am not sure this adds anything to the discussion. But there you are. --K3vin (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Strategy Section

I propose that the Strategy section be removed, as it adds no information of actual value. The second sentence is wholly irrelevant, and the first little better. Nik-renshaw (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cunningham Rules

I have removed the edit about "Cunningham rules." The statement was unsourced and seemed quite dubious. A simple Google search of "Rook" with "Cunningham" brought up nothing meaningful, and this variation does not seem to merit more mention than any other. Nik-renshaw (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reformed Christianity

I am undoing the parenthetical statement about Rook's popularity due to its connection with Reformed Christianity. The statement is unsourced and seems based on personal experience rather than research. Plus, it isn't encyclopedic in its presentation. If you can provide any source for this, or help me find a source, I would be glad to work to include it back in. Thanks. Nik-renshaw (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Veracity, Notability of Tournaments

I did quick Google searches for both of the "at least two annual tournaments." Neither showed up as anything more than a sentence here or there. Without some kind of good source, I am very wary of considering this information verifiable or probably noteworthy. If anyone can give me any kind of source for this, that would be great. Otherwise, I intend to delete the information, and possibly the entire section. Nik-renshaw (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm going to delete the section right now. Google searches of the names of the alleged winners turned up nothing outside of this article, and articles quoting this article. So, it is either vandalism (at least three of the players named in the second tournament attend the same university), or it is simply not notable. Drop a line here if you find a credible source for any of it. Nik-renshaw (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links

In case anyone ever looks here: Does it make sense for there to be links to places one can play Rook online? How does this fit in with Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature? Isn't this just a plug for pages making money off online gaming? It seems to me that these links do not serve as information sources, and should not be present in the article. Nik-renshaw (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Call Partner

Can anyone find rules for a call partner game. I belive this to be one of the funnest variations. Altough I play with certian rules I cant find them in any rule books. If someone were to add this that would be great. Skylark83 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

rook bird link

I added a link to the rook bird card section, because I felt it was a long enough distance away from the link in the deck description to pursuade me it was not overlinking. Admittedly I was skimming with an agenda, in that I wanted to see if the the article made mention of the names origin. I think it may warrant it, but have not the gumption to expand the article at this moment. At the very least, I felt cross wikilinking was enough. --K3vin (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adaptation for standard playing cards

According to the section "Adaptation for standard playing cards"

"Rook may be played with standard playing cards by removing the 2s, 3s, and 4s from the deck..."

One must assume this statement is talking about Tournament Rook, which according to the earlier section, takes out the 2s, 3s, and 4s. Since the Rook deck has an additional card in each suit, taking out the 2s, 3s, and 4s to simulate Rook makes no sense. Surely you would take out one less card, wouldn't you? To make the card scoring match up you might take out the 2s and 3s, and treat the 4s like 14s. I don't know what actual practice is, but this isn't rocket science...are people really that stupid, or is this section just in error? --Ericjs (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tournament Rook removes the 1 in addition to 2, 3 and 4. The rules suggested for french-suited playing cards here removes 2, 3 and 4 and uses the ace as 14. 109.189.56.7 (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hasbro not Winning Moves

The current article's infobox claims that Winning Moves is the publisher but unless Hasbro has sold this game that is not correct.

 Fixed It's actually both. Phil wink (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)