A Fifth Suit
sr...@interstyle.com
Hello All,
There is an amazing 5 suited deck of cards at:
http://interstyle.com/stardeck
The fifth suit is a black and red star, so the deck consists of
65 cards and 2 jokers. You can get 5 of a kind naturally. Its is
great for Poker and others like Spades and Red Dog.
People are either shocked or in awe of this deck when they are first
introduced to it. Its is known as Stardeck.
-Sean
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kevlahan
> There is an amazing 5 suited deck of cards at:
> http://interstyle.com/stardeck
Its just another flush draw to miss.
Chris K
B.J. Herbison
D. A. Ling wrote:
> > There is an amazing 5 suited deck of cards at:?
> And there are attempts to do a 4 colored deck for poker too, (with green
> and blue) The only difference is that it makes flushes more
> recognizable. Other tan that, what difference does it make? Certainly
> none for BJ where suits don't matter (excpet for certain gimmick games)
The fifth suit makes a change in poker probabilities -- in particular
flushes get harder to make. (It also introduces a natural five-of-a-kind,
but that's rare enough to be a minor effect.)
For a game with a trump suit, the fifth suit changes the ratio of trumps
to non-trump which will affect the balance of the game. Another effect is
that more suits increase the chance that at hand will be void of some suit.
For games that make a red/black distinction, the stars suit is both red
and black.
B.J.
--
B.J. Herbison HighGround Systems, Inc.
bher...@HighGround.com +1 508 263-5588 x126 FAX: -5565
1300 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719-2203
At home: b...@herbison.com http://www.herbison.com/herbison/bj.html
D. A. Ling
D. A. Ling wrote:
> I meant that you will play hell getting anyone to use a _5_ suited deck
> (unless they are just there for the novelty.) I was describing the 4
> color deck for poker. (Try to play bridge with this goofy (5 suit)
> combination. Might just as well use a pinochle deck for all the good it
> would do. 6 no trump) if you are trying to sell a new game, try a
> different group - like RG Poker (and see what reaction you get from
> THEM!!!)
Gad, I gotta start reading where I am! THIS IS RG Poker.
Michael Urban
>And there are attempts to do a 4 colored deck for poker too, (with green
>and blue) The only difference is that it makes flushes more
>recognizable. Other tan that, what difference does it make? Certainly
>none for BJ where suits don't matter (excpet for certain gimmick games)
A fifth suit alters the probabilities for Poker, as well as
introducing two new hands: the five-of-a-kind (very rare) and
reintroduction of the "primero" which contains one card of each suit.
I seem to remember a column by Parlett on this subject back in the
1970s in "Games and Puzzles" but do not have the reference handy.
I think there is a cultural resistance to novelties like this.
Many people learn card games from their families or college friends,
and like to play "according to Hoyle" (even if they don't know
who Hoyle was). Such people are going to be disinclined to
experiment with unorthodox packs and variations.
Daniel Blum
It's not all that universal a fact - 5-suited decks have been around since the
15th century (or maybe early 16th - I don't have Parlett's History of
Card Games handy right now). There have been many more since then, none
of which have been that popular.
In rec.games.playing-cards B.J. Herbison <BHer...@HighGround.com> wrote:
> sr...@interstyle.com wrote:
> > There is an amazing 5 suited deck of cards at:
> > http://interstyle.com/stardeck
> >
> > People are either shocked or in awe of this deck when they are first
> > introduced to it.
> It is amazing how many people have the ingrained understanding that
> the only possible number of suits in a card deck is four. It seems
> to be a more basic universal fact than gravity, deeper even than the
> fact that a person should always vote for <insert your favorite party>.
> When the deck is presented some people refuse to play and others demand
> to start playing immediatly. The best responses can be acheived by
> giving the deck to the dealer without telling anyone about the fifth suit.
> At work we've taken advantage of the five suits to make our Spades rules
> even more complicated by using Stars as a `sub-trump'. See
> http://www.herbison.com/herbison/spades_five_suits.html
> B.J.
> --
> B.J. Herbison HighGround Systems, Inc.
> bher...@HighGround.com +1 508 263-5588 x126 FAX: -5565
> 1300 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719-2203
> At home: b...@herbison.com http://www.herbison.com/herbison/bj.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Let it be granted that a controversy may be raised about any question,
and at any distance from that question." - Lewis Carroll
Ed & Liane Kuchmy
sr...@interstyle.com wrote:
>
> Hello All,
> 65 cards and 2 jokers. You can get 5 of a kind naturally. Its is
> great for Poker and others like Spades and Red Dog.
>
>
> -Sean
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Have you ever heard of the card game called 'rage'? It has 6 suites!
That's six different colours and each suites goes from 1 to 15. The game
is alot like euchre, with some differences of course. I think its by the
makers of uno.
Liane
T. Johnson
Roger P Williams wrote:
> (N.B. there are different associations, often created as "blinds" in the
> days when such "magic lore" was forbidden and had to be shielded from the
> commoners.) There is also a balance of male and female imagery
Males outnumber females in a deck of cards, 2 to 1. Maybe they ought
to make two of the jacks into "jills".
Roger P Williams
The minor arcanum of the Tarot deck has Prince and Princess ranks instead
of the single Jack, for 14 cards per suit and 56 cards total. It
otherwise resembles the ordinary card deck, except for the names of the
four suits. Most of what I've read on the topic suggests that the modern
gaming deck evolved from it, although nobody is sure when or how.
--Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Blum
In rec.games.playing-cards Roger P Williams <rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
> In rec.gambling.blackjack sr...@interstyle.com wrote:
> > There is an amazing 5 suited deck of cards at:
> > http://interstyle.com/stardeck
> > The fifth suit is a black and red star, so the deck consists of
> > 65 cards and 2 jokers. You can get 5 of a kind naturally. Its is
> > great for Poker and others like Spades and Red Dog.
> > People are either shocked or in awe of this deck when they are first
> > introduced to it. Its is known as Stardeck.
> Not so amazing.
> A couple of years ago, I began work on a "do-it-all" video poker program
> to be called AnyVDP. This was aborted not by any technical problems on my
> part, but by Bill Gates' introduction of a seriously flawed and IMO
> useless operating system which I would have to support if I intended to
> create any commercial software. So I gave up on the project.
> In any case, I was advised during development that there were 5-suit VDP
> machines, so I produced a 5th suit for AnyVDP. I called it "Coins." The
> theory behind this on my part was that the standard card suits have
> elemental/symbolic associations, and one has to be careful dealing with
> them. For example, the 52-card game deck is closely related to the "minor
> arcanum" of the 78-card Tarot deck.
> The card deck was intended by its inventors to be a symbolic
> representation of the world. Everything therein is in balance. For
> example, you have one suit for each "element of the ancients:"
> hearts = water
> spades = fire
> clubs = air
> diamonds = earth
That's crud, I'm afraid. The 52-card deck was invented before the Tarot
deck, and the Tarot deck was originally invented for playing with -
there is no record of it being used for cartomancy for several hundred
years afterwards.
> (N.B. there are different associations, often created as "blinds" in the
> days when such "magic lore" was forbidden and had to be shielded from the
> commoners.) There is also a balance of male and female imagery
> (especially in the Tarot, which still has the Princess rank, giving each
> suit 14 cards instead of 13.) And there is also a lot of numerological
> crap I frankly couldn't interest myself in even as an academic exercise.
Princess? Traditional Tarot decks have three male courts and one female.
(King, Queen, Knight, and Knave).
> I picked "coins" as a second "earth" element, on the theory that casinos
> are pretty crassly earth-oriented places (earth is the element of money
> and acquisitiveness) and that it seemed kind of appropriate.
> Your deck's imagery doesn't seem to have any symbolic background at all,
> except for what it got out of one too many George Lucas movies.
> --Roger
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
> Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
> we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
> They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Blum
> > Roger P Williams wrote:
> > > (N.B. there are different associations, often created as "blinds" in the
> > > days when such "magic lore" was forbidden and had to be shielded from the
> > > commoners.) There is also a balance of male and female imagery
> > Males outnumber females in a deck of cards, 2 to 1. Maybe they ought
> > to make two of the jacks into "jills".
> The minor arcanum of the Tarot deck has Prince and Princess ranks instead
> of the single Jack, for 14 cards per suit and 56 cards total. It
> otherwise resembles the ordinary card deck, except for the names of the
> four suits. Most of what I've read on the topic suggests that the modern
> gaming deck evolved from it, although nobody is sure when or how.
> --Roger
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
> Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
> we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
> They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest reading David Parlett's History of Card Games, which presents actual
historical research on the topic. Most of the other stuff I've read has been
pure speculation.
Scott D. Rhodes
>>Have you ever heard of the card game called 'rage'? It has 6 suites!
>>That's six different colours and each suites goes from 1 to 15. The game
>>is alot like euchre, with some differences of course. I think its by the
>>makers of uno.
>If you guys (and gals) start talking about Magic I SWEAR I'm gonna
>quit this NG. Well, ok, maybe not, but I'll THINK about it long and
>hard...
He's not talking about MAGIC, or anything like it. IIRC, there have been two
card games using special decks called Rage. One (perhaps the one that made
you think of Magic: The Gathering-of-poor-suckers'-cash) was White Wolf's CCG
based on their RPG WereWolf: The Apocalypse (the back of which asks the
question "When will you rage?" A friend of mine responds, "When you realize
you actually paid for such a stupid game, that's when!"). The second, which
is what the previous poster described, was a game by the makers of Uno.
Scott D. Rhodes
>> Males outnumber females in a deck of cards, 2 to 1. Maybe they ought
>> to make two of the jacks into "jills".
>The minor arcanum of the Tarot deck has Prince and Princess ranks instead
>of the single Jack,
Most Tarot decks I've seen have a Knight and Page in place of the Jack, not a
Prince and Princess. The only exceptions have been the silly "New Age
Feminist" ones that intentionally reverse all male and female imagery. Those
have two female images in place of the jack, not one male and one female.
Scott D. Rhodes
>> (N.B. there are different associations, often created as "blinds" in the
>> days when such "magic lore" was forbidden and had to be shielded from the
>> commoners.) There is also a balance of male and female imagery
>Males outnumber females in a deck of cards, 2 to 1. Maybe they ought
>to make two of the jacks into "jills".
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling he means that different suits are
"male" and "female". Maybe spades are somehow penises and clubs are (Anne
Boleyn's?) breasts?
All in all, it sounds kinda flaky to me...
Kevin J. Maroney
ur...@netcom.com (Michael Urban) wrote:
>>So few non-solitaire
>>games use card color per se that I don't know how much difference it
>>would make.
>
>Lessee... a left, right, and middle bower for Euchre?
Yeah, that's top of the list (or any game which uses the "jack of the
same color" mechanism).
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Roger P Williams
In rec.gambling.blackjack Daniel Blum <to...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> That's crud, I'm afraid. The 52-card deck was invented before the Tarot
> deck, and the Tarot deck was originally invented for playing with -
> there is no record of it being used for cartomancy for several hundred
> years afterwards.
Not according to the rather longish history of the Tarot which I read
several years ago. Unfortunately, it was from a library in another city;
if I get a chance, I'll look up the author and title.
The two arcana of the Tarot evidently started as two different and
unrelated decks. Whether they were used originally for divination or
gambling is an unanswerable question, as is the exact genealogy of the
minor arcana / playing card deck.
> Princess? Traditional Tarot decks have three male courts and one female.
> (King, Queen, Knight, and Knave).
According to the Tarot history, a few medeival decks used the Knave as a
sop to the prejudices of the folks who commissioned them (as this was
before the days of the printing press, the production of a deck of cards
was a major undertaking). However, none of the 5 decks I own has a Knave,
nor do any of the 50 or so decks carried by the local New Age shop, nor do
any decks I have ever seen in actual use, nor did most of the decks
pictured in the Tarot history.
In the same vein, a few Italian Major Arcana were commissioned without the
Tower card because it was a bit "close to home."
Daniel Blum
> > That's crud, I'm afraid. The 52-card deck was invented before the Tarot
> > deck, and the Tarot deck was originally invented for playing with -
> > there is no record of it being used for cartomancy for several hundred
> > years afterwards.
> Not according to the rather longish history of the Tarot which I read
> several years ago. Unfortunately, it was from a library in another city;
> if I get a chance, I'll look up the author and title.
My question is - does it have sources? And what kind? The history of
playing cards _I_ am familiar cites original medieval documents to
support its case.
I have seen a number of Tarot "histories" which agree with you - but never
one that cites any original sources for any of its "facts."
> The two arcana of the Tarot evidently started as two different and
> unrelated decks. Whether they were used originally for divination or
> gambling is an unanswerable question, as is the exact genealogy of the
> minor arcana / playing card deck.
> > Princess? Traditional Tarot decks have three male courts and one female.
> > (King, Queen, Knight, and Knave).
> According to the Tarot history, a few medeival decks used the Knave as a
> sop to the prejudices of the folks who commissioned them (as this was
> before the days of the printing press, the production of a deck of cards
> was a major undertaking). However, none of the 5 decks I own has a Knave,
> nor do any of the 50 or so decks carried by the local New Age shop, nor do
> any decks I have ever seen in actual use, nor did most of the decks
> pictured in the Tarot history.
Well, I've seen quite a few Tarot decks - all with a Knave. I've never seen
one with a Princess. As a matter of fact, I just bought two Tarot decks
in France (playing decks, not cartomancy decks), and they have Knaves.
> In the same vein, a few Italian Major Arcana were commissioned without the
> Tower card because it was a bit "close to home."
> --Roger
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
> Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
> we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
> They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Maroney
Newsgroups trimmed.
Howard Ship <Howar...@nospam.stratus.com> wrote:
>[Mu] is a sort of pumped up version of Whist that involves a
>bidding stage to set the teams and allow players to decide on trump.
>I'm not really a card player, but I love Mu.
Actually, the game it most reminds me of is Skat, a game which is
almost unknown now in the US but is still very popular in Germany.
Mu *isn't* Skat; it's a significantly different game with a lot of
tremendously clever original mechanisms, but it is, in my opinion, a
lot more like Skat than like Whist.
Mu *is* great, I agree completely. And the deck is beautiful.
SeaanMcAy
Actually, the tarot deck is a good example of a deck with a fifth suit.
Granted the trump suit is not arranged the same as the other suits (here I
group the Fool with the rest of the trumps for simplicity).
> There is also a balance of male and female imagery
Actually I agree with this statement, but not for any reason pointed out
so far. The 56 card pack that was used as the basis for Tarot decks is
based on the Latin suit signs (Swords, Clubs/Batons, Cups, and Coins) which
are used in Italy, Spain, and various other countries (see Trevor Denning's
Book of Spanish Playing Cards for more details). Two of the suits have
male symbols (Swords and Batons), and the other two suits have female
symbols (Cups and Coins).
If you would like more information about the Tarot, I strongly
recommend Michael Dummet's "The Game of Tarot" (alas you will probably have
to get it from a library, as it is out of print and very hard to find on
the used market).
Michael McKay seaa...@aol.com
Seaan McAy Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West (Santa Cruz, CA)
mckay_...@tandem.com or seaa...@aol.com
SeaanMcAy
There were a couple of other points from this thread I thought people
might find of interest. A previous poster (whose e-mail I have lost track
of) mentioned that Jacopo Marcello had invented Tarot cards in 1449. At
the time I knew this was not a true statement, but I had to dig up some
details before saying anything publically. As I mentioned in the previous
post, there is solid evidence that Tarot existed in 1442 (and some evidence
that indicates in might be as early as 1415). Michael Dummett's "The Game
of Tarot" is pretty much the definitive reference. Here is what Dummet
says about Jacopo Marcello (p33):
In 1449 a wealthy Venetian, Jacopo Antonio Marcello, sent as a present
to Queen Isabelle, the first wife of King Rene I, Duke of Lorraine, a set
of sixteen picture cards that had originally been painted by Michelino da
Besozzo at the order of Filippo Maria Visconti, Duke of Milan, who died in
1447. The set was divided into four groups of four cards each,
representing Virtue, Virginity, Riches and Pleasure; each card depicted a
suitable classical divinity. The pack has disappeared, but Marcello's
covering letter has survived, giving a description of the pack and saying
the it had been painted by Michelino.
The cards mentioned above are of interest on a slightly tangent
subject. There is a theory that Tarot cards (as we know them now) were the
joining of two separate decks. The first deck is the 52/56 card deck that
we are familiar with. The second type of deck is supposed to a 22 card
deck composed of trumps (triumphi or trionfi) and the Fool (mattos). This
was proposed by Robert Steele and Gertrude Moakley (author of "The Tarot
Cards Painted by Bonifacio Bembo for the Visconti-Sforza Family"). The
idea is that this gift of 16 "standalone" cards are evidence of the second
type of deck. Dummett spends some time talking about the theory and shows
why he thinks it's mistaken (pages 81-84).
Another aside, there are some historical decks with female court cards
(other than queens). Several decks had male court cards for the swords and
batons; and female court cards for the cups and coins. I still have to
agree that the vast majority of tarot decks use the King, Queen, Knight,
and Page.
Finally, while on the subject I found a reference to a 5 suited deck in
1465. It is known as the "tarocchi di Mantegna" (although they are not
tarot cards, and were not made by Mantegna). The deck was divided into
five suits of ten cards representing: social ranks, muses, sciences,
virtues, and the celestial spheres. They don't know what games were played
with this deck, and it is noted that the cards were on "flimsy" paper. The
cards were probably produced by someone of the Ferrarese school.
Michael McKay (known in the SCA as Seaan McAy)
mckay_...@tandem.com or seaa...@aol.com
Maikeru Long
SeaanMcAy <seaa...@aol.com> wrote:
> There were a couple of other points from this thread I thought people
> might find of interest. A previous poster (whose e-mail I have lost track
> of) mentioned that Jacopo Marcello had invented Tarot cards in 1449. At
> the time I knew this was not a true statement, but I had to dig up some
> details before saying anything publically.
The message to which you refer was the one that I sent. I did not
say in my message that Marcello INVENTED anything. I said that
he INTRODUCED the Tarot (to the French). I do not appreciate
being misquoted, ESPECIALLY after the exchange of E-mail (the
ones you sent to the address you claimed you lost) between us where I not
only clarified my original post further for you, but gave you much of the
information you just quoted in your post.
- Mike Long - ml...@u.arizona.edu
SeaanMcAy
Mike Long ( ml...@u.arizona.edu) writes:
>I did not say in my message that Marcello INVENTED anything. ...I said that
> I do not appreciate being misquoted, ESPECIALLY after the exchange of E-mail
Yes, I did mis-read "invented" for "introduced", and I did later have
an e-mail conversation with Mike about this. But here we have a classic
example of mis-communication over the internet. The post he refered to
was posted BEFORE we had our e-mail coversation. I had sent him a mail
message as soon as I read the original statement, but did save his address.
So it was not until he replied and we cleared things up that I had his address.
A good general comment for other people, remember there are time
delays, and don't jump to the conclusion people are trying to stab you
behind your back. In other words don't attribute malice to things more
likely explained by communication latency!
Michael McKay (seaa...@aol.com)