Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconBoard and table games C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Aren't runs worth 15, a pinochle 4, four aces worth 10, and so on?

As mentioned in the article, the scores are often divided by ten because the last zero is redundant.

I added this to double-deck section, also meld bidding.--Buckboard 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the scoring system doesn't need to be duplicated in the double-deck section? --Ashawley 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The double deck section has the scoring explanation removed and unduplicated. -- 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are many different ways to score. such as runs are 19, 20 with the nine. open bid at 25, marriage worth 2, 4 if trump. pinochle is 4, double is 30.

Have played where taking all the tricks is 'Pulling a Pinochle' and is an automatic game win (500 point game) or +500 points if in negative score. Anyone whos played it this way, have other team take a single trick with no points? Is it still a Pinochle or just worth 50 points? No Names Please (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My (California) parents taught me the lower scoring style: Minimum bid 15 in single deck game, rising by one each time; and minimum 50 in double pinochle, rising by one to 60, then by 5 point jumps. Scoring: 4-30-70-game for 1-2-3-4 pinochles; 15-150 for single/double runs; 4-40, 6-60, 8-80, 10-100 for single/double Jacks, Queens, Kings and Aces around (hence, "100 Aces" means two in each of four suits); 2-4-24 for single marriage, marriage in trump and marriages around; one point for an extra nine of trump, but only in single-deck (nines discarded in double -deck /partners game). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolving duplicate cards[edit]

When two copies of the same card are played in the same trick who wins the trick?

Typically the highest card played first takes precendence.

First played is always the rule. That's what makes taking your opponent's ace of trump so sweet. IMO more fun than over-trumping.--Buckboard 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More players?[edit]

There is mention in the introductoin about five and six player games, but no accompanying explanation later in the article.

This is mentioned in the article in the "Five-handed and larger Pinochle" and the "Racehorse Pinochle" sections.

Question on the "Playing Tricks" section[edit]

There is one method here mentioned that is not typical to the version of Pinochle that I am familiar with. i.e. Leading with trump. Is there any external verification to ensure that this is the standard of play? If it cannot be verified is there a way that we can include a statement suggesting that leading with trump or not are simply two different ways to play? Thanks. ~Rymnel~

Agreed--I have never played this way, nor is it in my edition of Hoyle. Trump is declared by the bid winner, and strategy is the key to the game. The object is to play to your strength, which may vary from hand to hand (i.e. lots of trump, or lots of aces, or short-suited) and to get through to your partner for tricks after playing out your leads. That makes playing trump as the first lead not only pointless but frankly much less fun.--Buckboard 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced that there is no standard way to play. There are merely more and less common variants. I agree that I have also never heard of requiring trump as the first lead. In fact, the whole "Playing Tricks" section is notably divergent from my own posted rules set. I'll make some edits to reflect alternative models of play. Snarke 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My family has used a sort of back-up option for if none of the players have a good enough hand to play. We allow the first player to choose if they want to bid, and before the first bid, any player is allowed to call "Bid or Bunch" which means that they may bid if someone else does, or if the rest of the players say either "bid or bunch" or pass, then the hand is thrown in and the next hand is dealt. We also increased the minimum bid to 25 (or 250 depending on method of scoring). I wonder if anyone else has ever played this way, or if it is a family modification. Thanks --Emily

Curious variant. However we have always played "cut-throat"--which means if you're the dealer and everyone passes, you'd better be able to declare trump (marriage in trump suit). Making tricks or going set is always problematical when the bid is "dumped on" you!--Buckboard 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My family has always had "bid or bunch", but it's a little different. Minimum bid is 25 (250) for 4-handed play, the first person can open or pass, same for the second. The third person can then open, pass (dump the bid on the dealer) or ask the last person (the dealer) to "bid or bunch". If the dealer wants to bid, they do, otherwise it gets tossed in and the hand is redealt. I've been told that's North Dakota rules, but I'm sure others in North Dakota have different rules. We can also throw in the hand if somebody has 5 nines (the person holding that hand can play it if they want, but usually they don't want to). We allow some limited talking to the partner (they can ask their partner if it's okay to throw it in), but I'm sure that's not standard. Nerfer (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate pages?[edit]

Would it be easier to try and reorganize a lot of the information on this site into seperate pages? For instance, have one page specifically for two handed variations, another for three handed, four handed, etc. And include single and double deck underneath each. Just a thought, as there's several variations on the main page. Uzerzero 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think someday that reorganization would make it easier for readers to use the page, and that would make this article just be a short summary of the game. Unfortunately, each separate article would duplicate the basic information about Pinochle--decks, betting. That would make them harder to maintain. But I think this page will stabilize at some point in the future and allow us to do just what you've suggested. -- 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about splitting off the section to separate pages, now? The article has changed a lot since July 2006.[1] --Ashawley 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealing options[edit]

In the version I have played, the dealer is allowed to deal in groups of three, four, five so long as all players get the same number of cards on a given round of the deal. Here are some of the options: 3-3-3-3-3 or 4-4-4-3 / 4-3-4-4 etc or 5-5-5. The 5-5-5 option is generally employed only near the end of a close game.Watercat77 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on Racehorse[edit]

The deal of 20 per player and 4 in the blind calls for a deck of 124 cards. Since the standard double deck is 80, what additional cards are included for six players? Are there two teams of three players each? --

I can't find an actual reference for the variation called Racehorse Pinochle in three relatively modern playing card books:

  1. U.S. Play Card Company's Official Rules of Card Games. 90th edition.
  2. Frey's According to Hoyle.
  3. Scarne on Cards, 1965.

I think "Racehorse" is just a variation of six-hand. Some Web sites suggest it's a variation that allows card passing by the bid winner. I don't know.

The six-handed games I read in those sources suggest using a triple pack and dealing 16 or 12, not 20. -- 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The variant I've heard described uses 2.5 standard decks without the 9's. Clearly some clarification needs to be written for the current description as the card count doesn't work as it stands.

Opening Bid[edit]

I have never played where the dealer opens at 150. The rule is the player to the dealers left starts (or passes) and the lowest bid cannot be less than 250.

I've generally played low bid no lower than 250 and understand that to be the rule. But have participated under house rules where the bid is 'dropped' on the dealer for 200 or 150. - swp

Passing Cards[edit]

I have never played the version stated here. What I have played is the one where the bidder declares trump, the partner chooses four cards to pass, then the bidder chooses four cards to pass back.

We refer to these variations as 'peak' and 'no peak' In the Upper-mid West 'no peak' is the standard and 'peak' is the variant. In the Southwest 'peak' is the standard and 'no peak' is the variant. - swp

Also a 3 card pass is standard in the Upper-mid West where a 4 card pass is more common in the Southwest. I have no experience with the New England game. - swp

December 2006 changes[edit]

A lot of contributions have been made this month to the article, some more speculative than others and some more helpful than others, but I've tried cleaning them up just now. Try viewing the diff from November 7, 2006 to today, it may give a substantive synopsis of what's changed recently. Happy editing, -- 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idea for picture[edit]

I have an idea for a picture for this article. How about a photograph of a decent Pinochle hand, or perhaps a bunch of melds laid out. The Euchre article has the best hand shown in a picture. -- 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinochle variant in Turkey[edit]

In Turkey we're playing a variant of Pinochle, which I couldn't find anywhere in wikipedia. The difference is, there're 96 cards (4 times 24 deck), can be played only with 2 players, each player has a hand with 9 cards, non-trump run is also awarded. For counting the points we're using a wooden counter special for this game.

There's one more variant of this game, which is played by 3 players, with 80 cards (4 times 24 deck without nines). Each player has a hand of 25 cards, and 5 cards are kept closed until the end of bidding.

Is there anyone who knows if these games are also played in other countries? Is there any english name for these card games? iyigun 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 hand double deck 5 card kitty[edit]

I was prison where I learned to play this version prefered for gambling for inmates. As it is 2 players against 1. I cannot find any information about it. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I enjoy playing this type of pinochle as well. Do you have any particular question about the variation? Or are you just wondering why it's not included? Jamie 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double-Deck Four-Handed Blind Pinochle[edit]


Here is a variation of pinochle that we use in our household. It creates quite an interesting game.

We use two decks of pinochle cards (96 cards, 4 of each variety of card, numbered 9-A).

Dealing Order[edit]

Round To Player To Blind
1 3 0
2 4 1
3 4 1
4 4 1
5 4 1
6 4 0
total 23 4


We start the bidding out at 35, until all pass to the highest bidder. The winner of the bid calls trump. The only requirement for making trump is that you must have some in your hand.

Bidder Picks up Blind[edit]

After trump is called, and before melds are made, the bidder gets the blind, showing everyone what the blind is.


Melding begins using the following table:

Meld Possibilities[edit]

Cards X1 X2 X3 X4
Run (A,10,K,Q,J of trump) 15 150 500 ---
Royal Marriage (K,Q of trump) 4 30 60 240
Dix (9 of trump) 1 2 3 4
Common Marriage (K,Q off suit) 2 4 6 8
Pinochle (J♦,Q♠) 4 30 90 360
Aces Around (A♠,A♣,A♥,A♦) 10 100 500 ---
Kings Around (K♠,K♣,K♥,K♦) 8 80 400 500
Queens Around (Q♠,Q♣,Q♥,Q♦) 6 60 300 500
Jacks Around (J♠,J♣,J♥,J♦) 4 40 200 500
Round Robin
26 260 500 ---

If "Round Robin" is used, cannot count the "Kings Around", "Queens Around", or "Marriages" used for "Round Robin". But if another "Kings Around", "Queens Around", or "Marriages" the double amount may be used for the additional type of cards. Also the "Run" includes a Royal Marriage, but if an additional Royal Marriage is held it can count for a double.

Meld Example[edit]
  • K♠,K♠,Q♠,K♣,K♣,Q♣,K♥,K♥,Q♥,K♦,K♦,Q♦ = (K♠,Q♠,K♣,Q♣,K♥,Q♥,K♦,Q♦) (K♠,K♣,K♥,K♦,K♠,K♣,K♥,K♦) = "Round Robin" + Double "Kings Around" = 26 + 80 = 106
  • A♠,10♠,K♠,K♠,Q♠,Q♠,J♠ = (A♠,10♠,K♠,Q♠,J♠) (K♠,Q♠,K♠,Q♠) = "Run" + Double "Royal Marriage" = 15 + 30 = 45
  • A♠,10♠,K♠,K♠,Q♠,Q♠,Q♠,J♠,J♦,J♦,J♦ = (A♠,10♠,K♠,Q♠,J♠) (K♠,Q♠,K♠,Q♠) (Q♠,Q♠,Q♠,J♦,J♦,J♦) = "Run" + Double "Royal Marriage" + Triple "Pinochle" = 15 + 30 + 90 = 135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning Cards to the Blind[edit]

After the meld is laid down, but before the meld is scored, bidder must secretly discard four cards to the "blind", they cannot be trump. If the bidder has all less than four cards elgible cards in his hand, the bidder must forfeit some points on the table to discard the remaining cards.

Play Begins[edit]

Bidder starts play each player must try to beat the highest card on the table, if player does not have a card in the suit that was led, he must play trump, if he is out of trump, he may play any card he wants.

Hand Exhausted[edit]

After play is completed, player who gets last trick gets the four cards thrown in the "blind".

Trick Points Added[edit]

Points are then added from tricks and "blind" based on the following:

Card Points
A's 1
10's 1
K's 1
Last Trick 2
Total Possible 50

Penalties Incurred[edit]

If one team recieves no trick points, that team cannot count their meld and the opposing team receives another 50 points for a total of 100 points.

If bidder does not make the bidded amount when adding meld to trick points, the bidder receives no points for the round and, actually, loses the amount bidded as a penalty for over-bidding.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comprehensive Pinochle Documentation[edit]

This site has documented 4 handed pinochle in a comprensive series of documents. There is also a pinochle hand evaluator program. Although there are many variations of the game, this version captures a truly addictive method of playing this game. Website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbcnslt (talkcontribs) 23:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blurring of rules[edit]

This article had the rules and melds of different pinochle games listed as standard which would confuse the novice. Since the standard game these days is pretty much partnership auction pinochle and the rules already posted were about 90% correct for this version I have removed the rules that are only in variant versions and put them in their respective variant entries. I'm sure there is more work to do but it's a start. Melds can be a sticky wicket since there are so many house versions. I stuck with the two versions of Hoyle I own and the Bicycle card website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should put a statement that many regional or family variations exist (details on passing, minimum opening bid, bid-or-bunch, throwing it in on 5 nines, etc.) I don't know of other card games that have that much variety. Nerfer (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kitty in three player games[edit]

The discussion regarding the kitty in a three player games is a bit confusing. I am not sure if this is simply poor writing or an attempt to list variations. In one sentence it states the non-scoring cards are discarded by the bid winner; later it states that any cards may be discarded. In the version I am used to, any cards may be discarded, and in fact, discarding scoring cards which are unlikely trick winners is a wise strategy. But others may play differently, so I am hesitant to edit this. Wschart (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It took me a second... actually the "kitty" is money or points given to an imaginary 4th player in a 3 player game of pinochle. But I read it and you are talking about the "widow." I agree it was badly written and confusing. I checked 3 sources and all agreed on how the widow is played. You may discard any three cards that "aren't melded." So you would take the widow, lay down your meld, dump any three cards remaining in your hand, and then pick up your meld. I fixed the article wording to reflect this and I hope that helps clarify. I'm sure there are many 3-player house rules and if you can find one on the internet simply add it to the end of the 3-player game under "variations" with a proper source. Good catch on the wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back after some time. This section looks pretty good now, except that it says that if you don't have enough cards left in your hand, you can pick up meld cards. But it does make it clear that if you do so, you lose that meld. Of course, there just might be a version where you can meld a bunch and then if you have less than 3 cards in your hand, you can discard meld and still keep the score, but I'd rather doubt that. Wschart (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for a major change[edit]

I would propose, for sake of lay readers, that a new major section be introduced, after the History and Deck sections, that gives a broad overview of game play. As it is, the article becomes too detailed, too quickly, losing readers wanting to first understand the overall nature of the game. Until the Deck section it is suitably useful; after, it leads one to close the window, and seek initial information elsewhere. 00:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pinochle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“favorite card game of American Jews”[edit]

Ref: Will Eisner’s story “Cookalein”, in the full page scene “Pinkus Firs”. (I only have a German version, sorry.) – Fritz Jörn (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of Pinochle[edit]

There appears to be some confusion about the origins of Pinochle as the discussion Talk:Binokel#Typical Wikipedia... shows. A copy is given below as it relates more to this article than Binokel.

The following is a copy of the discussion at Talk:Binokel#Typical Wikipedia... which is imported here for background.

== Typical Wikipedia... ==

This article is on the main page where it proudly states:

Binokel, from which the American card game of Pinochle was developed in the 19th century,

Whereras as the Pinochle article says in its second sentence:

It is derived from the card game bezique

So which is it? Before this article was published on the main page, I would have thought someone would have checked this was the case? (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well first of all, it's not really the job of the DYK process to check the veracity of all other related articles in Wikipedia. The DYK statement is backed by an authoritative source and we were satisfied it was right. Meanwhile, I've checked the sources again and it would appear that Binokel may have been derived from Bezique's predecessor, Besi. So Bezique and Pinochle are related but it's not accurate to say Pinochle was derived from Bezique; it was derived from Binokel which in turn probably came from Besi. Interestingly the Pinochle article doesn't cite any sources for it's bold, but IMHO misleading, statements. I'll go and change it now. Bermicourt (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well my intent was to amend this article as per the above and in line with the sources I have, but my edits have been reverted. However, the statements that Pinochle is derived from Bezique are not referenced, so I'd be grateful if someone could cite them. According to card historian, Parlett, they are related, but as cousins descending from a common ancestor; one is not the ancestor of the other. Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Print. The New Complete Hoyle by Morehead,Fry and Smith: "The original game of Pinochle is for two players, is almost identical to Bezique and is unquestionably derived from that game." The origin of the name is as follows... As pronounced in French, Bezique is much like "besicles": eyeglasses. Binocle in French and German also mean eyeglasses. This is from the book which I will cite. There is also the following. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. The fact they use "unquestionably" seems to imply it's speculation on their part and, of course, it is definitely questionable when you look at research by international card historian and card games expert, David Parlett. For example:
  • "American Pinochle developed in nineteenth-century immigrant communities from Binokel..." Parlett, David (2008) The Penguin Book of Card Games, Penguin, London/New York.
  • "Binokel. The still popular German game from which Pinochle derives..." Ibid.
  • "Bezique. There are many theories as to its meaning.... Its ancestor besi or besit means eye-glasses or spectacles. This is also the meaning of binocle, from which derives pinochle. Two-pack Bezique, an improvement on its 32-card ancestor..." the ancestor being besi from the context. Ibid
  • "Binocle, Binokel, Pinochle. Across the Atlantic, Bezique took sufficient hold to reach the pages of Dick and Fitzgerald's Modern Pocket Hoyle of 1868. It was, however, very soon eclipsed by its more down-to-earth German cousin, and that cousin was eventually to become one of America's most illustrious contributions to the world of card games. Binokel, still widely played as a famiy game in Württemberg, is of the usual 'origin obscure'. The game itself is virtually identical with Besi, the forerunner of Bezique... It first appears in the American Hoyles of the 1880s under the spelling Penuchle… later as Pinocle, and eventually as that cross between the two which is now standard spelling." Significantly they are grouped under the same heading, whereas Bezique is covered separated. Parlett, David (1991) A History of Card Games, OUP, Oxford/New York.
It is easy to see how non-historians might have confused the relationship between Bezique and Pinochle, but card researcher Parlett is clear that they are cousins and that Pinochle developed from Binokel imported to the US by German immigrants; even the similarity of the names suggests that. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is also Pinochle an overview, and Encyclopedia Britannica, telling of it's derivation from bezique. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the problem of it's name. If we were to use binocle as its derivation, then it should not be one of the terms in it's name. It would be a separate entity and need to be removed. Right now it's treated as a name variation or playing variation of the same game. But my thoughts are, with multiple sources saying multiple things, perhaps the sentence of its derivation should be re-worded to include both possibilities or dropped because it's unsure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid the only credible source, i.e. one with research credentials, is Parlett. It looks very much as if modern Hoyle's has forgotten its own history and speculated on Pinochle's origins; the myth has then been picked up by internet sites and perpetuated. EB, being a tertiary source, is considered less reliable by Wikipedia. I do agree with your point about the name, binocle, noting that Binokel used to redirect here which was also wrong, and have edited (and cited) the lede accordingly, so that's fixed. Bermicourt (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not the only credible source listed by a long shot. We have good sources for each derivation and it can easily be worded as such. It could be done as follows:
  • The origins of pinochle are somewhat convoluted, with some sources saying it derives from binocle,<added source> while others have it evolving from bezique.<added source> Its name comes from the French word binocle meaning "eyeglasses".
It's not a big change yet helps our readers understand the variance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to admit, though, that the name is a bit of a giveaway. Binokel - Pinochle. If it had been derived from Bezique, which was already well know in the US at the time, it would be more likely to have been corrupted to "Pezique" not "Pinochle" lol. Bermicourt (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That all depends on how you are reading it. I would not expect the name of the card game that pinochle derives from to be a name anywhere near similar. But I would expect the spelling name "pinochle" to be similar to "binocle" since when it was brought over to the USA the name got scrambled into an American name. At that time binocle and pinochle were really the same game with a different spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In which case we seem to be in agreement; that in the early days Pinuchle (as it was then spelt) was the published name given to Binokel (German spelling; Binocle is the Swiss name), the game brought over by German immigrants. Bezique had already been established in the US and didn't change it's name - why would it? Bermicourt (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's how I read it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as if to confirm that Bezique and Pinochle are cousins The American Hoyle in 1896 listed the rules for both "Bézique" and "Pinocle" separately. Bermicourt (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However it also calls pinochle "a variety" of bezique right in the first sentence of the lead. Oh and binocle isn't mentioned at all so I guess it doesn't qualify as a game that derives from bezique. You can read these things so many ways... even the word "cousins" is vague. Does cousins mean that both bezique and pinochle have the same grandfather game? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only see the snippet view, so can't read that, but the opening sentence says "Pinocle is an essentially German game..." which kind of clinches it because Bezique was a French game. And binocle is mentioned; it's just spelt Pinocle. My reading of Parlett is that the grandfather was a French game, Besi, from which both Bezique (in France) and Binokel (in Germany/Switzerland) developed. Bezique travelled to England and America and caught on in both places. Binokel was taken by south German immigrants to America, where the spelling changed to Pinocle (a "b" and a "p" sounding very similar in south German). but was initially the same game. It was then developed further into modern Pinochle. So Bezique and Binokel/Binocle are siblings. And that would make modern Pinochle a sort of 'nephew' of Bezique or possibly a 'cousin' if the latter has also changed somewhat over time. The earlier Hoyle's seem to fall in line with that; after the war, they get re-edited and that's when the text about Pinochle descending directly from Bezique creeps in, which would appear not to be quite right, although you can see why it happened. Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to you and all your family! Bermicourt (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further evidence that this game came from Binokel and not Bezique (as if the name wasn't obvious enough) is that, as the article says, "during World War I, the city of Syracuse, New York outlawed the playing of pinochle in a gesture of anti-German sentiment." Why would they do that, if it was derived from a French game?! If Pinochle is really descended from Bezique, that sentence in the article makes no sense and should be removed. But the reality is that it was a German game. Bermicourt (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might as well include both possible origins and let readers decide. It seems the best solution. I picked an order but it's no big deal if you want it flipped (as long as it remains completely balanced). Hopefully this will remedy going to some level of dispute resolution. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine to include possible origins as reported in reliable sources, but do we have such sources? Does Morehead's 1991 Hoyle book actually support it deriving directly from bezique, or was that an editing error? (It was previously only being used to support the statement that Binokel descends from Bezique.) I've removed the source and references as inappropriate sources: both are anonymous articles (well, one claims to have literally been written by some cats) and the former is also an advert. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My goodness, I didn't even know this ridiculousness was still going on. To be honest, those other sources that you removed were as additional sources. But I don't reallt care that you removed them. As for an editing error, I guess you'll have to contact Morehead. I guess well also have to contact writers of every book that happens our way at wikipedia to make sure they mean what they say instead of perhaps falling asleep at the keyboard. As it says in "verifiability": Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." Some library might have a copy for you If a quote from the book isn't good enough for you. This isn't a biography of a living person and I'd appreciate a little good faith on your part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I mean an editing error on your part, not Morehead's. When you rearranged the paragraph to say that Pinochle may have derived directly from Bezique, you left Morehead there as a source for this statement - which seemed like it could be an oversight, as the same reference tag was previously being used to source a different statement. Did you check a copy of his book at the time to confirm that it said this, or was the tag left there in error? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. If you read this entire conversation you can see that the derivation is quoted in full. For ease of seeing it I quote Morehead again: "The original game of Pinochle is for two players, is almost identical to Bezique, and is unquestionably derived from that game." I hope that helps clarify it. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying to a late arrival. I'll defer to User:Bermicourt as to whether this source is appropriate. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Card game books need to be treated with caution as they often plagiarise words from older books, perpetuate myths and make unsubstantiated comments. In this case Morehead, whose material I respect from a card playing angle, is making an unsubstantiated statement. There are several other card books that make the link between Binokel and Pinochle. Morehead's use of the word "unquestionably" implies that he's looked at the rules for Bezique and Pinochle and spotted the similarities, but because A and B are similar doesn't necessarily mean B was derived from A. Parlett, on the other hand, is an historian who does at least cite most of his sources and I've quoted him above. I'm not saying it's a cast iron case; but our role is to use judgment about what is a reliable source. My own research to date into original sources reveals the following:
  • The earliest known mention of Pinochle is in the 1864 edition of The American Hoyle which describes the rules of Bezique and then says "It is known among our German brethren as Peanukle."
  • The earliest rules for Pinochle appear in the 1885 edition of The American Hoyle. Prior to that only Bezique is described.
  • In 1894 The American Hoyle states that "Pinochle is essentially a German game; it was originally played with one full pack of fifty-two cards and was evidently a German variety of Bezique."
  • In 1897 Foster in Foster's Complete Hoyle states "judging from the rank of the cards, which is peculiar to German games, Bezique may have originated in an attempt to play Binocle with a piquet pack..." and "One German writer says the game [of Binocle] is of Swiss origin."
  • Meanwhile in the 1856 edition of the Revue Suisse it mentions that the inhabitants of Vevey on Lake Geneva played at Brelan and Binocle. This lends credence to a Swiss origin as it predates the earliest Pinochle reference. The 1876 edition of the Revue also reports Swiss folk playing Binocle.
  • The earliest mention of Binokel in Germany is in the 1888 Deutsche Encyklopädie where it is recorded as a popular card game in Switzerland that is the same as Bezique but with several small differences.
  • Meanwhile Bésigue is not recorded earlier than 1847 in Paris where Méry says that it is a new game. The website Académie des Jeux Oubliés says that the game descended from Brisque and Briscan; that it is often claimed to have orginated in Limousin or Angoumois where it was called Bezi, but there is nothing to confirm such claims.
So the consensus from early American sources appears to be that Pinochle is German (that could mean either Swiss German or southwest German) in origin and came from Binocle. However, it's also clear that Bezique and Binocle are related. Was Bezique invented first in southeast rural France and then spread both to Switzerland and Paris where it was rapidly picked up in England and America at almost the same time? Did Bezique become Swiss Binocle even before that? Or was Binocle invented in Switzerland, then spread to France? We don't know. However, Morehead and one or two other modern authors excepted, the sources seem to be saying that Binocle, a cousin of Bezique, arrived in America under that name, imported by German-speaking immigrants, the name was corrupted to Peanukle, Pinocle etc and took off as a suite of games in its own right. Bermicourt (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now have a copy of the New Complete Hoyle Revised by Morehead et al. and look forward to using it. In addition to the claim cited above, it states that both Bezique and Pinochle in their relatively modern version date to the 1860s. Well that clearly doesn't make sense since there is no "earlier version" of Pinochle in the sources. Bezique was, however, initially played with a single pack and that was still the case in France in the 1860s when American two-handed Pinochle was using a double pack that is the hallmark of Binocle. Contradicting itself, the book then goes on to say (p. 362) that "the original game of Bezique was invented in the 1860s" which is clearly wrong as we know it appeared in Paris in 1847. So its a good book for card game rules, but its historical commentary looks a bit shaky. Bermicourt (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]