Cribbage
Forum
Try more gamesCribbage
LIVE
|
Main Forum
|
Book Report-All About Cribbage by G. Douglas Anderson #1
|
|
Book Report-All About Cribbage by G. Douglas Anderson Posted by 221bBakerSt (VIP) Jan 23 2022 6:57PM As I promised ImDerc, I ordered, received, and read every word on every page of the book that he believes is the cribbage 'bible'. My comments are mine alone and do NOT reflect the opinion of the ACC or GC. First, I was intrigued by the author. Who was this guy G. Douglas Anderson? How did he come upon this knowledge? Is he a world-renown player, author? Sadly, the book imparts none of the information to the readers, as there is no information about the author or his 'authority' to write a book about cribbage. The only available information via search engines points only to his book and also, deeply hidden; a reference to him being nominated to the ACC Hall of Fame. He was elected based on writing the book and being a chief judge at the National Open tournament in the 1970s. (In North Carolina) He was elected for, "In 1971 he wrote "All About Cribbage", and AT THAT TIME this book was recognized worldwide as the official reference book on the game." So, in a nutshell, ImDerc or IPeg could have just as easily written "All About Cribbage", as Anderson fails to cite why HE had the knowledge, authority, or expertise to write a book of such 'biblical' proportions. He does mention Hoyle briefly, but he should have gone on to reference Hoyle in-depth. A lot, and I mean a lot of Anderson's book was copied verbatim from 'Hoyle's Games Modernized" published in 1898. Right in between Blind Hookey and Ecarte, you find Cribbage. That came out 73 years before Anderson published. You heard it here first. Anderson plagiarized Hoyle. This thought occurred to me while reading the book. Where did Anderson come up with terms like sequences, runs, pairs- royal, nobs, nibs, heels, etc? Those terms are unique to cribbage, certainly not all card games. Anderson certainly changed some terms, he called it a Jack instead of a Knave and added personal touches like made-up rules and statistical information at the end of the book (written by another and properly credited). Interestingly, he got several things completely wrong including the cut for deal. Even Hoyle says low card deals, but Anderson changed this to the high card, but then states, "In many places, modern usage has altered this rule and through local custom, the lowest card wins the cut and the deal" This is an interesting statement. What rules that are not modern and not local is Anderson referencing? Hoyle's book clearly stated it in 1898. That mystery along with answers on how he came about with his made-up penalties died with Anderson in 1977. I don't want any reader today to believe that this book was necessarily bad. Anderson did a very good job deciphering 19th Century British writing of rules into understandable modern English. When I read Hoyle; if I did not have a complete and comprehensive understanding of cribbage, I would have been completely dumbfounded. Anderson simplified the game using modern terms so a layperson could get a good grasp of the game. I found the general basics of the game well written (but virtually the same as Hoyle, just in different phraseology.) To possibly irritate ImDerc 200 years in the future, Hoyle actually says, "If the loser has made less than half the specified number of points; he is "lurched" and pays double the agreed stake." (I believe Hoyle was referencing the 61-point game) It never said it was optional. Never said someone had to agree about it. ONLY Anderson said that. I suspect that Anderson had his fair share of being skunked or "lurched", and when he decided to write the book, HE decided it was optional. This is also seen in many of his made-up penalties. I suspect that a lot of these were irritants to Anderson and he may have had more than one person ask him where the book was that said those penalties existed? So, Anderson created the book. One is a way to penalize accidentally exposing an opponent's card while dealing, and several rules that have no basis in logic. For instance: If the dealer only deals 5 cards to himself there must be redealt. Why? Why not just take the next card off the top of the deck, as it was clearly going to go into his hand anyway? Or this one: If you accidentally deal an extra card to your opponent, he gets two points and the cards redealt. But only if he hasnât looked at them yet. (Everyone in the entire world has done this, you get to talking, lose count when dealing) I guess when you write the book you get to make whatever rules suit you. We call that kitchen cribbage. Grandma's house, kitchen rules. Rebuttal coming.... Posted by ImDerc (VIP) Jan 26 2022 11:19AM You make some good points, but some shockers too, will explain soon. 2/3 Option Posted by 221bBakerSt (VIP) Jan 30 2022 5:49PM As I stated in the above post; here is a copy of my original post in August 2021 regarding skunks. As you can see, I said that the 2/3 format should render skunks irrelevant...BUT that it could be an option in tix games. Here was the post: This has nothing to do with 'runners' thorn jack. The 2/3 option is similar to a playoff in the ACC Consolation Tournament. Skunks are not relevant and the loser deals. (note NOT alternate deal, but loser deals) If you wanted to incorporate skunks, then make it so the player risks losing more than one stake, but 1.5 stakes. For instance: If I am playing for 1 Tix and lose by a skunk, then I lose 1.5 tix to my pone. 5 to 7.50, 10 to 15 etc. This is a similar scoring system to the ACC which a skunk counts for 3 points and a normal win 2 points. The value of a skunk is not double, but 1.5 times the value of the stake. Obviously, both players would have to agree to a skunk setting. Both players would then 'pay' the 1.5 times amount (say 1.5 tix for a 1 tix match), and if it is a normal win, then the .5 tix would be refunded to the losing player. Should be relatively easy to set up that way. Still waiting for ImDerc's report on my book report. Reply, part 1 Posted by ImDerc (VIP) Feb 3 2022 6:53AM Glad you ordered & read the bible Baker. You question: Who is Douglas Anderson (or G Douglas Anderson as the ACC & you refer to him), how he came across his knowledge & why he had the authority to write such a book when he wasnât a world renowned player or author? The blurb on the inside of the back cover of the book explains exactly who he was, his experience (over 50 years of playing) & why he wrote the book (because he had âwitnessed many a heated argument about rules & scoring that could never be resolved for lack of a reliable reference workâ). Whether he had the âauthorityâ to do so is questionable. But find your argument that he wasnât a âworld renowned playerâ ridiculous. Was there any such a cribbage player in the 70âs? Iâm sure he had played cribbage in several countries during his time in the Navy & most likely played against people from many other allied nations; so maybe that could possibly qualify him as being âworld renownedâ. The fact the ACC inducted (not just nominated as you wrote) him into their hall of fame many years later suggests they respected & appreciated his contribution to the advancement & clarification of the rules of the game more so than you do. Or maybe; as you mentioned, they inducted him because he was a CHIEF judge at a National Open Championship in the 70âs. Whatever the ACCâs reasons for inducting him into their HOF were, all indications point to them somewhat considering him as an authority on the game of cribbage âat that timeâ. Since he is still in the ACCâs HOF, it seems they still do. AAH; Hoyle, you mention him as if you have read anything he wrote, I doubt that is the case. Pretty sure you have just read a book that attached his name to it to garnish credibility. Find it amusing that you then say Hoyle said this & that; when the truth is no one by the name of Hoyle had anything to do with the book you refer to. Talk about plagiarism; copying the words of another author is bad, but when you pretend as if they wrote it by including their name in the title; thatâs much worse. Also on that point, should taking a username from a well known work of literature by Arthur Conan Doyle be also considered plagiarism or would that be going way too far? After all, we all live in glass houses & we shouldn't throw stones... My final post on this topic Posted by ImDerc (VIP) Feb 6 2022 3:00AM Think we could bicker back & forth on this subject, but I can be bothered anymore. I strongly believe skunking is nothing more than an optional spice that can be added to the game. Douglas Anderson said it in the bible & the ACC is wishy washy on it, so I rest my case. Feel free to have the final word, but as I said, this will be my final post on the subject. Wishy washy? Posted by iPeg Feb 6 2022 6:56AM The ACC is far from wishy washy on any of the rules, including skunks. If you read their rule book or attend a tournament, you would come to realize that jumping to premature conclusions was unwarranted. Since Anderson was a judge and seemed to embrace the ACC, and he is your hero, you should do the same. Settled Posted by 221bBakerSt (VIP) Feb 6 2022 1:16PM Well ImDerc, thank you for settling and confirming my main argument in my post. Firstly, let me say that MY copy of All About Cribbage contains no back-cover bio about the author. Mine says copyright 1971, 6th printing. Not sure which printing you have. Your statement (or rather your book's statement) 100% confirmed my suspicions. Anderson made up the rules (and penalties) because he, "witnessed many a heated argument about rules & scoring that could never be resolved for lack of a reliable reference work". This is exactly as I predicted and speculated. To be clear, I also said that Anderson's name in the search engine was that he was 'nominated' to the HOF and was then confirmed that he was 'ELECTED' to such a position. I suppose I should have used the word inducted, but to me they are interchangeable. The person ends up in the same place regardless of which word you decide to use. As for Hoyle, yes I read it. I even explained how hard it was to read "old English" which was the standard, obviously, at the time and how confusing the explanation of rules Hoyle gave was, HAD I ALREADY NOT been thoroughly versed on the subject, I would have been lost completely. I then gave Anderson credit for turning that into something understandable. I also understood that Hoyle himself did not write cribbage rules, but his brand did, and you seem to be one of the rare people that is super eager to question that brand in favor of an unknown author in 1971. You might have missed that section, or felt that personal attacks (as if I had never read Hoyle's original cribbage rules-properly cited by me), or attacking my username was somehow akin to publishing a profiting from a 'literary work' was the same thing. It is very common in today's world to call people names when you have run out of legitimate arguments. People call each other racists, Nazis, science deniers, misogynists, etc. because their argument has fallen apart and they want to get in the last word and somehow feel superior to the person they are debating. You can feel however you want to 'feel' about skunks in cribbage. You can make people play by whatever rules YOU want them to be when you are running the show. Since you do not play live sanctioned tournaments, you can do whatever your heart desires. I never said you could not. Since you only play in your kitchen or at a local cafe or pub, play by whatever rules you want to make up. There are, actually, people who also feel that the earth is flat and that nobody ever landed on the moon. It doesn't mean that it is true, but thank you very much for confirming that the reason Anderson wrote his book was to settle arguments. That actually made my day. Ipeg, as usual, is exactly correct. If you actually believed in Anderson as much as you say that you do, you would embrace the ACC and what it does for cribbage all over the world. Rules to further better cribbage come out in EVERY new addition of the rule book. Just like the laws of whatever country you live in, adjust as the times change. You're not arguing that we should be using the same laws from your country from the 1600s are you? How about 1971? Should those be the ONLY laws in effect and no revisions? Are some of the rules optional in your country? Are they optional on how you feel about them? See that is what you have done arguing Anderson. From the beginning, you said it was the bible, which means it cannot and should not be changed. If that is your argument, I actually feel sorry for you. 100 years ago in almost every country, women could not even vote or drive. Some would say those laws should have never been changed either. In the last 50 years, how many rules have been changed in your country/city/ town? Did you call them out on it, saying those rules from 1971 should still be in effect? Yea, I didn't think so. Physics laws are really the only ones that don't change. Until they do. Just ask Einstein. this is too much fun to abort Posted by ImDerc (VIP) Feb 9 2022 9:27AM baker, when you said "Ipeg, as usual, is exactly correct." Which of his 2 points were you referring to? Was it his first point that Anderson "seemed to embrace the ACC"? Didn't he die 4 or so years before the ACC came into existence? Did he embrace the ACC from his grave? Or do you agree with his 1st point that the ACC isn't wishy washy regarding skunking rules? If so; why did you post this previous comment: "The 2/3 option is similar to a playoff in the ACC Consolation Tournament. Skunks are not relevant and the loser deals."? Doesn't that statement both imply skunking is irrelevant in consolation tournaments, but also the ACC applies a skunking rule to their other tournaments? That sounds wishy washy to me. Geesh Posted by 221bBakerSt (VIP) Feb 9 2022 3:40PM ImDerc, if you ever played in a live tournament you would know the difference between a qualifying round and a playoff after the qualifying round. In the qualifying round skunks are very much important. In the playoff they are unimportant because you are no longer qualifying. Remember that Anderson is the only person in any book that said skunks were optional, but skunk-lines were not. As far as Ipeg and Anderson go, Anderson was clearly enamored with organized cribbage, as he participated in the National Open. (the precursor to the ACC). If he was alive today, I have no doubt he would be an active member and even more so a worthy and interesting opponent. Anderson wrote a book in which some of the rules came from earlier books and the rest he made up because he was tired of people arguing about the rules. So he made new ones. The ACC is the only organized cribbage group of any significant size or import in the WORLD. Maybe you should try playing in ACC tourneys someday. You might like it. Anderson in ACC HOF Posted by iPeg Feb 10 2022 10:15PM Itâs obvious that the ACC was greatly influenced by Douglas Anderson. He was the chief judge at the National Open Cribbage tournament. Forgive me that when I read that, I assumed it was sanctioned under the ACC at that time. The ACC provides the following about Mr. Anderson on their website: In 1971 he wrote All About Cribbage, and at that time this book was recognized worldwide as the official reference book on the game. He was appointed chief judge at the National Open cribbage championships in Raleigh, NC in the formation years of this tournament. It is interesting to me that the National Open has a different format than other major tournaments in that it is a double elimination tournament, first player to win 7 points wins the match, wins count as 2, SKUNKS count as 3 points! I will try to ascertain whether these rules were in place when Douglas Anderson was a judge. Oh, and it was also stated he was an electrical engineer, as I am also. Had I been a contemporary of his, I think we would have gotten along very well. All good iPeg Posted by ImDerc (VIP) Feb 15 2022 9:25AM Douglas Anderson isn't my hero, I don't live in awe of anyone, past or present. But growing up, my Mum always said my sisters & I had to firstly try to sort any differences we had when playing cribbage from the rules he wrote. If we didn't reach consensus, Mum would say "wait until your father gets home" & the game was put on hold until then. He had the final say, mum didn't play & it was Dad that bought Douglas Anderson's book when it first hit the book shelves in NZ in the early 70's. On a side note Mum often used the line "wait until your father gets home" on me & usually it meant I was in trouble. Almost enjoyed it when she said that just because me & my sisters were bickering about cribbage, lol. Not surprised the version Baker bought seems to lack the full content my version does. Guess that happens when you buy an abridged version 50yrs later through Amazon. As I said, I don't worship him, but I'd never be so disrespectful to accuse him of just making up rules to suit himself. I'm sure he merely wanted to avoid people arguing when he wrote the rules according to the most popular ones he had experienced in his 50yrs of playing this great game. I haven't been awarded an OBE for my services during wartime; been a chief judge; or even written the first ever book specifically about cribbage. Guess that's why he was inducted into the ACC HOF & neither myself; you or Baker are. I respect his achievements. |
|
GC Store
$Ticket Tounaments
$Ticket Tounaments
