Talk:Cribbage

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cribbage (strategy) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 February 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cribbage. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This statement seems meanless to me:

The dealer will always peg at least one point in 2 player, 6 card cribbage (unless opponent pegs out before all the cards are played).

It says that the dealer will always peg at least one point, unless there are circumstances that make them score zero points. If there are no objections I will remove it.

meshach 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that unless the game ends before a round of pegging finishes, the dealer must always peg at least one point - it's impossible for the dealer to score zero in pegging. Not well worded, I'll grant you. So I'll reword it and return it - see what you think. - DavidWBrooks 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Understand now - I had to think about that one for a while. Looks good

meshach 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It may not be Hoyle, but I (and everyone I know who play) NEVER cut the cards. This is due for nearly the opposite reason it might be a "competitive" (i. e. betting) game. The reason is simple: it symbolically shows you don't believe your opponent has stacked the deck. A gentleman's game--no cheats. The point taken when the offered cut is made is mere gamesmanship. Most people play just a dime a point anyway, so it's usually no real issue, just innocent trickery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason S. Klepp (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of (most of) the paragraph complained of, I have restored it as I originally wrote it. I have also been playing cribbage for a long time, and I encounter this variation quite often. Other than that, I don't know what manner of direct evidence I can offer that will satisfy you. You may, perhaps, though, take it as indirect evidence, that the ACC website sets out its contrasting official rules upon this same point so emphatically. Clayton D. Jones 09:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll just mark it down as under the control of a true believer, then, and leave it to your pleasure. Have fun!

Clayton D. Jones 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Hi I like the crib wiki. I have played crib for a long while, but have never had the rules formalised for me. It seems that we have been playing all the correct rules with the exception of the flush in the box only counts if it contains the turn up card too, but I don't think it happens often enough to matter.

What I would like to have seen is a better description of how the cards get delt and the number of cards that end up in the crib. I know for 2 players, generally 6 cards are delt and each player puts 2 in the box, giving 4 cards for both players and box. Also in 3 & 4 player crib 5 cards are delt and 1 is put in the box (with 1 delt to the box in 3 player) again giving 4 cards for players and box. But how on earth does it work with 6 player?, or when playing 7 card crib? Does the crib end up with a huge advantage due to the extra cards?

Also I have been told that in crib you should only shuffle the deck at the beginning of the game and should NOT shuffle between rounds. The collecting of the cards however is not strict they are simply all placed to the bottom of the deck (obviously you do not then cut the pack or you would end up playing with the same cards again) and the next round is delt. The reason I was given is that it helps improve the hands over time, but I suspect it might have more to do with the elderly people that tend to play the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin lester (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shuffle between hands? That's a new one to this life-long cribbage player. But regional variations exist, of course - as well they should. Uniformity is so dull!

This article is dangerously close to violating (if not already in violation of) one of the rules of What wikipedia isn't - we're not a "how-to" guide. The idea isn't that you can print out this article and use it as your sole guide to learning and playing cribbage; doing that creates such a huge morass of information that it's of no use to the casual reader. So let's not try to explain every nuance of crib size or dealing patterns in all the variations - there are a zillion Web sites for that. - DavidWBrooks 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mathematically elegant variation where the six dealt cards per player and the starter (13 total) are not shuffled back into the deck, but rather are "discarded." This limits the game to four deals (13x4=52), two by each player. A player with a good memory would know the exact contents of his opponent's final hand. However, I can't find any references to it, so I put it here. --205.201.141.146 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is incorrect:

The highest possible score in six-card cribbage is 29, for a holding of 5, 5, 5, J with a starter of a 5 of the same suit as the Jack. This scores:

"fifteen sixteen" - for J-5 four times and 5-5-5 four times,

"and twelve" - for four 5s,

"and one for his nobs makes twenty-nine."

If a player is holding four fives and turns up a jack then one extra point can be awarded (Two points are awarded to the dealer when a jack is turned up as the starter card, while only one point is awarded in the above example. However, this can only be achieved from the dealer position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.76.70 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true: the two for his heels are awarded when the jack is turned up, and therefore do not count as part of the score of the hand. 65.93.148.105 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Can't figure out how to indent properly..)[reply]

add up the points as stated above: 16 for the 15's, 12 for the 4 5's and 1 for his knobs. The Jack must be in your hand to recieve one for his knobs (provided that the jack matches the suit of the cut card, in this case the cut has to be a 5) Thats correct.

Youre Right about the wording, it doesnt work in cribbage. "If a player is holding four fives and turns up a jack then one extra point can be awarded (Two points are awarded to the dealer when a jack is turned up as the starter card, while only one point is awarded in the above example. However, this can only be achieved from the dealer position." 2 for his heels do not count as part of the hand (you do have to be the dealer to recieve 2 points from a jack being cut, but it is immediatley given to the player, it isnt added when the hand is counted), but you dont have to be the dealer to recieve 1 for his knobs (jack in hand matching the suit of the cut card) a simple rewording will fix the issue i guess. hope this clears it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.184.14 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)R.J. Wilson[reply]

Let's work together on this.

1. check this before you change my 'their' to avoid the awkward 'his or her'
2. 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)[reply]

• Please be cautious with the "revert" edit summary - it implies vandalism, which is incivil. As for checking, it works both ways. Agent 86 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what would you like me to check?Abtract 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked nibs nobs and have corrected accordingly :) Abtract 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a big point about this but according to the [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I agree with your intention, but I see no reason why to make a comparision to such a different game as poker. Other than having flushes in common, I'm hard pressed to think of any significant similarities. I've re-written the intro, mostly by reorganizing some of the contents. Agent 86 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flushes, straights, and n-of-a-kind. i.e. anything that scores points in poker scores points in cribbage. The system by which the hands are formed is also quite poker-like. I realize that the uniqueness of cribbage is a point of pride, but references to more conventional games can be very useful in making it more accessible. It's not like people will see the poker reference, think "Oh, I know how to score a hand now; it's just like poker" and toddle off without actually reading the rules. HonoreDB 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's closer to rummy than poker, surely? [Dave, oldbloke.livejournal.com] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.201.48 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm the highest possible score by the dealer in six card is 66? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsawytscha (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 June 2007(UTC)

The dealers score of 66 includes hand, crib and pegging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsawytscha (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 June 2007(UTC)

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)[reply]

It is a very good source ... consider putting it in the article as I have done. Abtract 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two questions about the article. When is a new deal made? When the article refers to "counting" as a skill used, this is not counting in the sense used by blackjack players, if there is a new deal every 13 cards. Second; a friend said this game is both popular and important in US prisons. Anybody know if this is true? How does one play it in a cell? Cherrywood (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counting is not a skill that has significant use to gain advantage in Cribbage. You do have to be able to keep a running total of the card values in order to play. That's about it.

Quite a variety of games are played in prisons (for example see the discussion at [2]). Outside of the highest-security facilities, prisoners don't spend all of their time in cells. Presumably most play happens during recreation periods. -Stellmach 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, we know that two-player cribbage is more original/better/more fundamental (take your pick) than having three or more players, but the three-or-more player angle needs to be covered. I'm thinking that there are three main ways of doing this:

• covering two-player and more-player description/rules/etc. within the main article text,
• making the main article text on the two-player version, with a separate section on more-player rules, or
• having separate Wikipedia pages for two-player and more-player.

My preferred option is the first. The distinctions between two-player and more-player are, actually, quite slight. Any attempt to separate, say, rules, scoring, examples and so on from two-player from more-player would result in quite a bit of repetition of the two-player text in the more-player section to make it clear. Going as far as creating more than one page would result in further duplication: references, images and so on.

I'm going to work on integrating more-player details into the main text, while attempting to keep the message that the two-player version is the main one. TimR (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see that the information already present under "Variations" is insufficient. Deor (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, let me try again. If you simply explain the way in which the game is played for two players, then when you want to expand that to three, you have to introduce new ideas: play passes clockwise, the person who starts is on the dealer's left, play can continue between two players once one has said "go". What I've put together is what I think is a reasonable compromise: the description of play, scoring, etc. applies just as much to three and four players as it does to two, meaning that the "Variations" section can be fairly straightforward. Are you happy with the text as it is at this point? TimR (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasones I re-wrote the article a while back was because it had grown messily complex and was too much like a "how to play" manual. This was in part because it tried to cover all the variations. It seemed to me that as an encyclopedia article it needed to concentrate on the main variant ("the game") and just give passing reference to the others ... no-one trying to learn a card game would (should) come to wikipedia, they would go to a book on card games. Please bear trhat in mind when making changes along the lines you propose. Abtract (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with that. I would definitely expect a Wikipedia article on a card game to include the rules of the game. TJRC (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ... but not a manual describing every possibility, advice, anecdotes, etc. Some of the card games articles had got overly complicated and weighed down with many uncited 'local rules' and variations on the game. Actually Crib wasn't too bad but Hearts is the one that started me on this train of thought. Anyway I'm not saying don't edit as you were suggesting but just bear in mind What Wikipedia is not. Abtract (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read through the article again and I think you have gone much too far. The examples you give with their wonderful illustrations are exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in a card playing manual and not in an encyclopedia, they overwhelm the article and make it difficult to follow the plot. I also have some detailed disagreements but my main one is as stated above, I believe it is much more useful to the reader to concentrate on the base game (2 player) and mention the variants ... readers can then go to a card playing book or a friend for the rest; WP is not a tuition manual and this is what you have made it (with the best of intentions I know). I would remove all the illustrated passages however nice they look ... I wonder if any other editors have views on this subject? Abtract (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take your point. You did a great job in this edit, taking this version, which had a lot of useful, but unorganised facts in it, to this version, where it's a lot more organised and readable. I have been trying to follow on from that by i) continuing to make the content clearer, and ii) adding examples to illustrate what was being said. I accept that Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for detailed tuition on how to play the game, but I agree with TJRC above, and do think that there is a place in Wikipedia for a reasonably detailed description of the mechanics, and so on. I also agree that this shouldn't be too much, or too detailed to get in the way of the general reader.

I had a look at chess to see how that had been put together to address these questions, and was interested to find quite a long section on rules, with a link to a separate article containing even more detail. I like the compromise which this offers: some content on the main article page on the rules, as this is an important part of the description of the game as a whole, and then more detail accessible to the reader, if required. It looks to me as if this is the way we could go with this article. TimR (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if we could make it like Chess then we would have achieved something. I am going to start a new section because we have moved on quite a bit from the original "how many players". Abtract (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarting from [this position] my main difficulty is with the illustrations; they are beautifully done but very intrusive (imho). I suggest that as a start we have a new sub-article (to go along with Cribbage (strategy) and Cribbage (statistics)) called maybe Cribbage (examples). This would retain the good work but would allow the eye to more freely take in the main article. Abtract (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! If we're going to go along the lines of chess, how about we go for Rules of Cribbage (compare: Rules of chess) where we can move most/all of the illustrations, along with all of the detail of play and scoring and variations, and leave summaries of these in the main article? TimR (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed but please move all the illustrations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs) 03:43 March 9, 2008

Just a comment -- I just love how TimR and Abtract are working collaboratively and egolessly to improve this article. Way to go, guys. TJRC (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK no problem. Abtract (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's mentioned in the article Rules of cribbage, linked from the "Rules" section here. Deor (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there is a version of Crib called Muggins - where your opponent can claim points for scores which you do not notice. However, I think that this is not all that commonly played. ACEOREVIVED (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete. All information from Cribbage (strategy) has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am retracting this comment. Apparently I misread something. SedonaJon (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]