order of suites
B.J. Herbison
Barney wrote:
>
> I am looking to settle a dispute between my wife and son over who had the
> "higher suit" during a game of cards.
>
> We know that spades are the highest, what is the order of the other three?
The order of suits for the game of Bridge is
Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades
with clubs and diamonds classified as minor suits
and the other two as major suits.
The concept differs in other games. Poker and Back Jack
don't have any order of the suits. In the game of Clubs
clubs, being trump, is the highest and the others are equal.
The same with spades for Spades (see my web site for the
Spades rules I use and other pointers about Spades).
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
Barney
I am looking to settle a dispute between my wife and son over who had the
"higher suit" during a game of cards.
We know that spades are the highest, what is the order of the other three?
Please forgive the question if it is somewhat annoying to members of this
group.
I know my favourite group has someone asking the same silly question every
few months (a troll), this however is not the case here.
Please send your response here into the group as my e-mail gets too much
crap in it if I post it.
I thank you.
PostalPets
The order of suites from lowest to highest is:
clubs...diamonds...hearts...spades
John McLeod
PostalPets <posta...@aol.com> wrote:
>The order of suites from lowest to highest is:
>clubs...diamonds...hearts...spades
In 500 (and several other games):
spades...clubs...diamonds...hearts
In Skat, Schafkopf, Doppelkopf:
diamonds...hearts...spades...clubs
In 99:
diamonds...spades...hearts...clubs
Although standard Poker has no suit ranking, some variants involve
ranking the suits, and several different rankings are in use (see the
poker hand ranking page on my web site).
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/
Barney
John McLeod <jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<t0exrJBr...@pagat.demon.co.uk>...
> PostalPets <posta...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Although standard Poker has no suit ranking, some variants involve
> ranking the suits, and several different rankings are in use (see the
> poker hand ranking page on my web site).
> --
> John McLeod For information on card games visit
> jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/
>
>
Hmm, okay, what happens then when you both have a Royal Flush, but in
different suits? Apparently, this is what happened during the game my
family had, and now we're curious who won!
Thanks for all the responses too.
John McLeod
>> ranking the suits, and several different rankings are in use (see the
>> poker hand ranking page on my web site).
>
>different suits? Apparently, this is what happened during the game my
>family had, and now we're curious who won!
In standard poker it is a tie and you split the pot. What I don't understand
is why people who ask this question always worry so much about royal
flushes, which are rather rare. What about the case where two players have:
A: king of spades, king of clubs, 7 of hearts, 7 of clubs, 9 of hearts
B: king of hearts, king of diamonds, 7 of spades, 7 of diamonds, 9 of clubs
Who wins in this case, do you think, A or B? Even if you have a ranking of
suits it seems far from obvious which hand is better.
B.J. Herbison
John McLeod wrote:
> What about the case where two players have:
>
> A: king of spades, king of clubs, 7 of hearts, 7 of clubs, 9 of hearts
> B: king of hearts, king of diamonds, 7 of spades, 7 of diamonds, 9 of clubs
>
> Who wins in this case, do you think, A or B? Even if you have a ranking of
> suits it seems far from obvious which hand is better.
It seems obvious to me -- take the highest ranked cards in the hands
(Kings in this case) and award the pot to the hand that has the card in
the highest suit.
What I don't understand is why people would bother -- I don't see how
splitting the nit of suits in such a rare case improves poker.
B.J.
--
B.J. Herbison HighGround Systems, Inc.
Information about Spades: http://www.herbison.com/herbison/bj_spades.html
including the best rules: http://www.herbison.com/herbison/spades_rules.html
Scott D. Rhodes
>>If there is no order of suits, then you simply change from a situation where a
>>person with TJQKA of spades can bet without hesitation, to a situation where a
>>person with TJQKA in *any* single suit can bet without hesitation. So what's
>>the problem with the certainty of having ordered suits?
>Someone else might have TJQKA in another suit. In fact, two people
>might. Or three. The hands would be tied, and thus split or carried
>over, depending on the house rules.
Okay, I can see where there would be hesitation in betting if the house rules
stipulated that the hand would be carried over. But if it is split (as I had
assumed), then there is no reason to hesitate in bidding. Assuming one other
person with TJQKA, then you will get half the pot, but you may rest assured
that you will have contributed no more than half the pot to begin with. Same
for one third of the pot if two others have TJQKA. In short, if you have any
one-suit TJQKA and suits are irrelevant, then if the pot is split in a tie
then you are assured of getting at least your bet back in any case, and thus
you can bet without hesitation. By instituting an order of suits, the number
of hands which can result in this lack of hesitation is reduced from four to
one.