|WikiProject Board and table games||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Further to my edit of 7 July... the article as it stands gives the impression of Piquet being a "period piece". The language is also rather outdated given "the very old book from which [the author is] quoting" (for example, "a guinea to the pool") and thus somewhat difficult to follow.
I play Piquet quite often, and have been considering editing this article to give a more straightforward account of the game. However, I don't think I can actually build upon the text already here, but would need to start virtually from scratch.
Hence this Talk entry: if there is an objection to my almost completely rewriting this article from a more modern perspective, please could that be mentioned here? Thanks. Loganberry 15:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Please feel free to rewrite it. It's pretty bad as it stands. I'd say I'd do it myself, but it could be years before I get round to it. --Camembert 17:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, as you can see by the date above, I've not exactly been lightning-fast myself on that score. I do hope to get around to it before too much longer, though. Loganberry 23:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's in the public domain, but I found a reference to the 'dated language' from the following book:
The Gaming Table : Its Votaries and Victims : Vol. 2
Montclair, New Jersey
You can find the reference via Google.
The section on Carte Blanche says: "Carte Blanche must be declared prior to exchanging cards. Only one player may declare Carte Blanche. The Elder hand exchanges their cards first, so they have the advantage here. The Younger hand must wait until the Elder exchanges their cards. If the Elder has not declared Carte Blanche, then the younger may."
Isn't this missing the point that it is impossible for both players to have carte blanche? There are only 20 non-court cards to go around! This whole paragraph seems unnecessary, but I'm hesitant just to delete it without first explaining myself. MarkC77 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't delete it. The sequence of play is still valid due to the order of the exchange. A clarification seems in order, though. Todd 08:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Rules queries and corrections
I have updated and clarified some of the rules, particularly regarding scoring, in accordance with the rules as described in the books of Hubert Phillips and David Parlett. Two questions arise, which I am reluctant to change without first seeking a second opinion.
- Both of the above authors state that Younger may exchange any number of cards between zero and the remainder (up to seven, if Elder takes only one). The rules here state that Younger is restricted to between one and five. Is there a reference for this rule, other than in the vague excerpt cited in the article?
This issue is complicated by the 1897 Hoyle rules (Foster), available on-line in googlebooks: "[The Pone] may discard...any number of cards from one to five.... . The dealer then discards... . In England he need not draw at all, in France he must draw at least one card. Besides the three cards which belong to him, he is entitled to take as many as he pleases of those left by the pone, and in drawing from the talon he must take the cards in the order in which they came." So if Pone leaves two of his five, and Dealer wants three, he must first take the two left by Pone. Foster says each may look at any of his cards which he doesn't take, but Pone can't see dealer's until he leads his first trick. JMK Aug 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Cavendish says in his Laws of Piquet that Younger may exchange any of the cards left by Elder (law 34, page 6).
- Neither Phillips nor Parlett discounts the possibility of a "point of three", but these rules state that a player must have four cards in a suit to declare point. It is unlikely that both players will have their suits split 3/3/3/3 after the exchange, but it is possible. Again, is there a reference?
MarkC77 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Consolidated scoring options
Crossing the Rubicon section is version sensitive, redundant, and not worthy of its own section.
Someone should remove the Crossing the Rubcon section. After my clarification of the scoring section it is now redundant and only pertains to one version of game. It is also given too much importance even within the Rubicon variation, as it is just at term not a phase of play. 184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never encountered the English pronunciation given here. The only one I've heard is with the stress on the second syllable (and the T sounded of course). Maybe it's a US-UK difference, but in the UK I'm pretty sure that my version is current with anyone who still plays the game, so perhaps it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenprime (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)