Entertainment desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 7

Scrabble board in Steptoe and Son

During an episode of Steptoe and Son, a scrabble board was briefly shown. It had lots of rude words in it. Is a picture or diagram of the board available to see online anywhere? Thanks. Update: The episode was Men Of Letters, series seven, 1972. 92.29.111.79 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visible at 1:30 meltBanana 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 78.149.173.243 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another place where you can find Dirty Scrabble depicted in a visual medium is the 1978 movie Foul Play. The game is being played by two old ladies who don't notice Gloria (Goldie Hawn) standing on their balcony and trying to attract their attention after escaping from captivity, and the scene is shot in such a way that the nature of the game is not made explicit. --Anonymous, 21:57 UTC, April 7, 2010.

If I recall correctly, one of the sweet old ladies creates a 12-letter word that starts with "mother-". How lovely. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western card games with "Eastern" scoring?

I enjoy playing Eastern games. One such game is Koi-Koi. The scoring seems different from that I have read of in Western card games. In terms of scoring method, the closest Western card game I can think of to this is Cribbage-- actually, I am a bit surprised that Cribbage actually is Western. Are there any other such popular Western card games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.250.70 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2010

Well, Mastermind also uses pegs to keep score, but then, the whole game is played with pegs. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some versions of dominoes that use non-numerical scorekeeping, not pegs per se, but IIRC, I have played versions where the score is kept by drawing a "house" for each player with line segments, and the game is won when someone completes their "house". Its been about 15 years since I played this version (in Chicago IIRC) so I don't remember the details, but I do remember the weird non-numerical scorekeeping, much like Cribbage. --Jayron32 04:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no!! I do not mean how the score is physically kept, but rather how points are earned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.156.169 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what method of earning points are you looking for, exactly ? StuRat (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave examples, because I am not quite sure how to describe it. What I mean is that, instead of individual cards being worth points, combinations of cards are worth points. Please see the relevant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.96.50 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochle is a notable example of scoring via combinations (as well as scoring through more traditional trick-taking means). Our stub on melds may be of use, as that's the term used in Pinochle. — Lomn 14:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge has two methods of scoring; points for tricks and for "honors", that is holding certain cards in yoru hand before the trick-taking portion start. Honors are essentially points awarded for good bidding. --Jayron32 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pagat.com web site contains an index of card games classified in various ways, which may be useful, although it's clear that such classification is difficult. For example, cribbage is classified as an "adding game", but I looked under a couple of other categories for it before I thought of trying that one. Although the site contains a large number of games from many countries, koi-koi is not among them. The game is mentioned in the category of Games played with flower cards, but presumably you would not find any "western" games there. --Anonymous, 00:09 UTC, minor edit 02:51, April 10, 2010.

Most intelligent card games?

Some simple card games may be no more than a mechanical playing out of simple rules. Which games have intellectual depth, like chess? Poker may be one such game, because of the uncertainty involved, but are there others? The important aspect of chess may be that moves made now can have difficult-to-predict results in the future. This may not apply so much to poker, but what about other games? Side-question - are there any intelligent patience or other single-player games without opponents? Thanks 78.149.173.243 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canasta and euchre spring to mind. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some games may have complicated rules, but which ones have true depth? I'm not a card player so I don't know where Canasta or Euchre would be. 78.149.173.243 (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contract bridge. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge involves lots of mechanically playing out rules, they just aren't simple rules and the rules aren't part of the game but rather part of your chosen bidding system. --Tango (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question was which card games have intellectual depth. If bridge doesn't have that then I don't know what does. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people's problem with contract bridge is that the game is usually reduced to a memorized set of "bidding conventions" with little attention paid to actual strategy. During the bidding phase, if everyone correctly uses the bidding conventions, all 4 players know the hands of each other, and the hand pretty much plays itself. I prefer other games of the Whist family, for example auction bridge plays exactly like contact bridge, but with a scoring system that has greater penalties for being "set", and less penalty for underbidding, which as a result turns bidding into actual bidding and not just a complex code for telling everyone your cards suriptitiously. Bid Whist and Spades and Forty-fives also come from this same family, and have similar levels of strategy and depth. --Jayron32 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "the hand pretty much plays itself" is a serious mischaracterization of contract bridge. (Of course it is true sometimes, but that applies to any card game.) You usually have only partial information about people's hands, and to play the game well you have to make inferences from things like what bid someone did not make, what card someone did not play, your opponents' mannerisms (but not your partner's), the probability of different layouts of the cards, and which card someone discarded eight tricks back when diamonds were last led. In tournament bridge (duplicate bridge), on top of all that you also also have to think about what is likely to happen when other people play the same cards, and this in relation to the particular form of scoring in use. It is certainly not easy.

The word "surreptitious" is also a mischaracterization; full disclosure of bidding agreements, whether conventional or natural, is required. If you find it distasteful that a bid in hearts may sometimes by agreement show spades rather than hearts, that's your prerogative, but there's nothing surreptitious about it.

I'm not saying a word about the other games Jayron mentioned, because I've played them much less or not at all, and I'm certainly not saying that Jayron ought to like bridge because I do. I am saying that he's giving bridge a bum rap to say it's anything but deep.

Further, the existence of complicated bidding systems (which people aren't required to use, by the way, although it's certainly helpful to be able to understand the implications of your opponents' bidding) is another way in which contract bridge is a deep game. Not only are there sometimes deep tactics involved in the play of the hand, there is also deep strategizing involved before you ever touch the cards, in the choosing -- or if you're inclined that way, the designing -- of the bidding methods you'll use. Of course, you will typically start by playing a standard bidding system, so that part's already been done for you, but you don't have to stay with it. --Anonymous, 22:39 and 22:43 UTC, April 7, 2010.

It's clear that neither Tango nor Jayron32 have in-depth knowledge of bridge. Both bidding and playing take a great deal of skill. It's a pretty telling sign that newspaper bridge columns are stilling going strong after all these years, dissecting the intricacies of both. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started playing bridge at 7 or 8 years old, and played it along with many other card games, such as the ones I mentioned above, along several other games, pretty regularly (weekly to monthly) from that age until today. My extended family (mom came from a family of nine, so aunts, uncles, cousins, dozens of us) would get together every few weeks and play cards, most often bridge. Be careful when you say "its clear that..." I don't know what I am talking about. --Jayron32 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about Anonymous' response to your comments? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous said nothing wrong or inaccurate or made any attempt to spread falsehoods about my knowledge of cardplaying merely because I expressed a preference for some card games over others. He said I am free to like or dislike any game, as is he. I agree with his analysis 100% insofar as it involves defense of his opinion of contract bridge, and it is well thought out and well reasoned and an excellent analysis of all of the good points of contract bridge. His comments are great and informative for people trying to pick up the game. He didn't try to tell me I didn't know how to play a game I have played regularly for almost 30 years, as others did. --Jayron32 05:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't quite understand how you can say that "Anonymous said nothing wrong or inaccurate" when his analysis of the game differs fundamentally from yours. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous explained aspects of the game that made it enjoyable or challangeing or intellectually satisfying for him. I explained aspects of the game that I found to be annoying or bothersome. His description of elements of the game was factually correct, and is not in dispute. His feeling that the game was enjoyable is also not in dispute because that is his opinion, and thus is beyond criticism. I am not a mind reader, so I cannot say if he is lying about his own opinion, I must assume he is telling the truth about his feelings towards the game. So he said nothing wrong. Clarityfiend said that I was inexperienced in a game I have been playing since the early 1980's, which is a falsifiable statement of (supposed fact). Having 25-30 years experience at something is almost never described as "inexperienced" under any reasonable definition of the word, so that statement is something one can raise an objection about. --Jayron32 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, when you say "if everyone correctly uses the bidding conventions, all 4 players know the hands of each other, and the hand pretty much plays itself", what else am I to conclude? It is impossible to know everybody else's hands just from a few rounds of bidding, no matter how sophisticated your bidding system is. As for hands playing themselves, oy vey. Hundreds of bridge writers would beg to differ. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the level of knowledge you have about the cards at the start of a hand of contract bridge is greater than the level of knowledge you have about the cards at the start of a hand of Spades or Auction bridge. In both contract and auction bridge, you can see 50% of the deck (your hand and the dummy's hand); however in contract bridge the bidding conventions allow you to communicate additional information about your hand that you could not otherwise communicate. If you pay attention to the bidding, you can reliably know, say, if another player is long in a suit, or has honors, or has lots of face cards, or none. That additional information makes your array of options, as a player, much easier to choose from. In auction bridge, I know a) 50% of the cards and b) what suits the opponents are strong in, if they even bid; it is not uncommon in auction bridge for both partners to pass the opening bid, revealing absolutely NO information about their hands. In contract bridge, because the scoring system places higher rewards for making the contract exactly and places less penalaties on getting "set", there are more opening bids, and thus more opportunities for extracting information about your opponents hand. This additional information is where some players find additional "intellectual depth"; i.e. interpreting how the bids give that extra information. The thing is, because of bidding conventions, I find that this information is too specific. For example, in auction bridge, if I open with a two club bid, it means "I think I can make 8 tricks, and I want trump to be clubs" and nothing else. I am bidding exactly what I say, and I reveal nothing else about my hand; I have a strong hand in clubs. If I make the same bid in contract bridge, I am saying "Hey partner, I have a really strong hand. Why don't you tell me what you have, and we'll chat back and forth and come up with a strategy on how we should play this hand, before anyone even plays a trick." By making several additional bids, my partner and I have placed more bits of information into public knowledge. Yes, there is something to learning the code, but once you know the code, its just table talk. It's just you and your partner saying, in the end "Hey, I got Ace and King of Spades. Do you have the other face cards? Good. And your short in another suit? Even better! Lets bid spades!" I prefer to make my strategy on the fly, I find it much more intellectually stimulating, as a matter of personal preference, to interpret the hands as cards are played; rather than hashing it out beforehand. Which is why I prefer games like auction bridge or spades... --Jayron32 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting)

Can't you and your partner create your own bidding convention before the game, just to bewilder your opponents?

If you're talking about springing an undisclosed convention on the opponents, that might be bewildering, but it's also cheating. As I said above, the rules require agreements to be disclosed. If you just mean inventing a new agreement and properly disclosing it, that's legal (although in tournament play the sponsoring organization may limit what conventional agreements you are allowed to have) and a legitimate part of the game. Good opponents will not be bewildered. --Anonymous, 07:23 UTC, April 11, 2010.

If this is the case, then I am guessing that, in a computerized tournament at least, there is no need to actually bid: one need merely select a bidding convention before the game, and the computer will perform this phase automatically. This would kill any possibility of cheating.

No, bidding is not that automatic, although some bids may be required by one's chosen system. In addition, it is permissible to deliberately make a false bid (called "psyching") as long as your partner is as likely as the opponents to be fooled. --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, April 12, 2010.

---

Free cell solitaire seems like a somewhat complex single player game. StuRat (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarock, when played seriously, includes a lot of strategy and thinking. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really help you much, but there is one game I know of that is 100% skill: snap. --Tango (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of asking the question is: for what card games is it difficult to program computer players that can beat skilled humans? Poker I believe, what else? Thanks 78.144.248.81 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cripple Mr. Onion..hotclaws 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemidemisemiquaver

Which musical compositions have hemidemisemiquaver notes or hemidemisemiquaver rests? -- Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am wikifying "hemidemisemiquaver rests". -- Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I think you'd probably find examples of both of them in J S Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The note sequences with four beams in the image at Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Toccata confirms the presence of such notes.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Regondi's Reverie (Opus 19) for guitar. A review of one recording here contains the line "A slow introduction is followed by clusters of gossamer-like hemidemisemiquavers (64th notes) before the tremolo section is heard." Ka renjc 22:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not that uncommon. The first examples that came to mind were: Beethoven's String Quartet No. 14 (see, for example, the first complete score at [1], page 13), JS Bach's Partitas, BWV 825-830 (see [2], page 15), and Bach's Goldberg Variations (see complete score at [3], page 37). There must be many hundreds of other well known examples. Pfly (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]