Rook Followup
In response to my page about Rook, I got this response in April 2007:
Greetings,
I’m writing regarding the rules for Rook on your web page. I have been
researching this game, and summarized the main official variations. This
information may be useful to you – you can check out my following posts
(under the handle: EndersGame). As far as I can tell, the variation you
described is called “Buckeye”, and is so described in the book Rook in a
Book published by Winning Moves.
Playing with regular playing cards
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/160917
Official Rules For Four-Player Partnership Rook
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/161214
These posts may also be of interest:
Reflections on whether or not to use the Rook card
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/161213
Relationship between Rook and 200 (Deux Cents)?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/160892
In short, I’ve discovered that there are two official variants for
four-player partnership Rook:
1. Kentucky Discard (Tournament Rules)
2. Regular Partnership (Original Game)
There is also a third popular way of playing:
3. 1-High Partnership
Most variants are based on these official methods of playing:
1. Variants based on Kentucky Discard (Tournament Rules): Kentucky Discard
(Original Rules), The Red 1, Buckeye, 200 (Deux Cents)
2. Variants based on Regular Partnership (Original Game): Dixie, Display,
Boston
As for versions of the game played with regular playing cards, there are
two main versions popularly played:
1. 200 (Deux Cents) – based on Kentucky Discard
2. Princeton Rules – based on 1-High Partnership
But I won’t deluge you with two much information in this email message,
instead I humbly refer you to the first two thread links above for more
info. I have spent quite some time analyzing the official rules, and the
different variations described online, and I am quite confident that the
analysis in my posts in the forum is quite accurate and I hope it will be
helpful to you and perhaps help the content you have produced become more
comprehensive and complete:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/160917
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/161214
I’d welcome your comment or feedback, and feel free to make use of this
information in your work, whether website or book.
Sincerely,
Richard