Talk:Cheat (game)

Playing cards by Rank
Suppose a player puts down 4 kings, and is telling the truth. Then, suppose a player puts down at least one Queen. With knowledge that the kings are gone, can the next player put down deuces ?Jkister (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you have to call within one rank of the last play, even if there's no way you could possibly have any of the cards. This is part of the strategy of the game, forcing others to cheat and calling them on it.

Incidentally, Hoyle describes a version called 3 card I doubt it, where all plays must be in threes. This of course requires a lot more cheating. 74.211.58.183 (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding a link to Card_games
self-explanitory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.106.153 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

well its in there but its not very obvious, i suggest putting it at the end in a category such as "Other Card Games", see card_games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.106.153 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename to cheat
Let's not have needless profanity on wikipedia. I propose renaming the article to Cheat (game), and changing all uses of 'bullshit' to cheat. The article can still mentione bullshit as an alternative name. M0ffx 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

okay it's tight!!


 * Modifying the page to recognize the distinction between bullshit in quotes (where it is capitalized) and without (not capitalized)

Is the Neopets link really spam? The Neopets game "Cheat" is more than just another implementation of the game, it has unique rules, such that a player may place up to four of any rank if he/she is the first player or if it is his/her turn immediately after the previous player has been challenged. Otherwise, the player must use the same rank, one higher, or one lower. The ranks "loop" from King to Ace, and vice versa, for determining what cards a player may set down. Covarr 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is actually the version I played at school (in the UK). I came on here to suggest that it was perhaps worth a mention as another variant. -- Jetekus 13:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moffx, also I think a link to the article on the word 'fuck' is a bit of a joke.

I have always heard the game named as "Bullshit." Wikipedia is not censored, and all that bullshit. 65.6.213.12 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

When I was in school, this was a popular game under the name B.S. but my copy of According to Hoyle calls it "I Doubt It". I suspect that the latter name is propably the most common in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on what the game is most commonly known as. If the game is most commonly known as Cheat then change it to Cheat. If the game is most commonly known as Bullshit(from what I know that's true) then leave it as Bullshit. I understand where the person who wants to change the name to Cheat is coming from however we must stick to the most recognizable and easy to find name Tydoni (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of the game is absolutely "cheat" but like all card games will have some other names by which it is known. To name but one example the "Pan book of Card Games", 1960 (1st edition 1953) calls the game cheat. The game cheat will precede the word Bullshit which as a word was originally just Bull (OED). This is mainly Penguin / David Parlett's fault for leaving the game out.Tetron76 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out a source on the history of the documentation of the game. Calling the game "Cheat" by this source would be like calling the game checkers as "draughts" because theres an older source which called the game so. Does anyone call it draughts anymore? How many people do you know call the game cheat instead of bullshit? Shabidoo | Talk 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone I know calls it cheat. Although, this should not be taken as a compelling point because I am an expert in the games field and so my point of view would have an undue influence in this area on the people who know me. But unlike almost every other very common card game in the UK I have never had it called by a different name. This is different from checkers and draughts although the largest competitive body still calls the game draughts but I can find any source on draughts acknowledging the name checkers, this is not trans-Atlantic vocabulary but an oral tradition where the wikipedia community overly samples one demographic.
 * In this case, a book specialising in card games would need to be found that calls the game bullshit and this still may not make it primary. What has happened is the latest common works on cards left the game out through oversight. I am sure if you asked David Parlett about the game he would know it as cheat. Tetron76 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose I could go out and do a survey and use that as a source but that would be original research. Oh blast that rule ;) And we do have to use primary resoures no? One of wikipedias cardinal rules. But, oh but, there is another rule. It is ... "be bold". Lets be bold. Lets, stick with that naughty word ... bU// s$|t. :) Shabidoo | Talk 04:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

how do players get eliminated from the game?
The Endgame section mentions a situation in which only two people are left in the game. This implies that people can be eliminated from the game. In the preceding description of the game there is no explanation of how this can occur. Could somebody in the know describe the conditions in which people can be eliminated from the game? Cricobr (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) depending on the version my understanding is that the first people to run out of cards are elimiated however I generally play a version where the first to run out of cards wins Tydoni (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Cheat (game)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Cheat (game) JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit (card game) → Cheat (game) —This is the proper name of the game and always been the common name in the U.K. wikipedia is in danger of renaming the game. Tetron76 (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC) i.e confirmable sources. What happened is that with all card games a "word of mouth" causes a variety of people taught the game under different names and sometimes the wrong game. But while the game might have older names it was neither bluff nor bullshit the etymology of both these words can be traced. This is a case where a single source has been used for building all of card games on wikipedia The Penguin book of card games where David Parlett has completely left the game out!Tetron76 (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pan Book of Card Games, p282, Hubert Phillips, 1960, 2nd edition
 * The complete book of card games, 1939, H. Phillips & B. C. Westall
 * Comment: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title is based on a common name used today, in 2011. Not the official, proper name. And not the original name that was used back in either the 1960s or the 1930s. And although "Cheat" may be the common name in the UK today, it appears that it has a different common name in other parts in the world. So now WP:ENGVAR comes into play. The article appears to have been originally created under the "bullshit" name, so I'm inclined to keep it that way under WP:RETAIN. Also, the concern that using one particular name in the article title will "rename" it in other parts of the world is unwarranted. All alternate names used around the world should still always be listed in the article's lead section. Otherwise, everybody in the UK would have already started using the word "gasoline" instead of "petrol" to describe that substance. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, WP:COMMONAME also specifies that "article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic". If there is consensus that the current title is vulgar, I'll accept that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a book source calling the game bullshit. There are later books that call the game cheat too with no referebce to another name, I just didn't have them on my bookcase. I was focusing on the UK because I can't comment on the U.S. word of mouth names in the last 15 years.
 * I have played many card games and cheat is one of the commonest played in every school. While one persons experiences of game names is narrow, I have never come across another name for the game and I used to play bridge as a junior across the country. Oh, hell, Hearts, Beggar-My-Neighbor I have encountered under many different names. There are other games such as spit and sh*thead that have more than one game by the same name. Cheat I have never found anyone not know amongst card players and never had a second name for.
 * While I did hear the name in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, it would at least require a book to call the article bullshit (game). Pagat for example has both names but would barely pass as a RS, this is not the same as gas / petrol where everyone knows the American name. Hubert Phillips was the card authority of his timeTetron76 (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME; in Britain, at least, and I think in most other Commonwealth nations, this game is almost always referred to as Cheat. I can't speak for the US, but the sheer number of number of names for the game listed in the article would seem to indicate a lot of different names for the game in active use. As such, I'm not convinced that WP:ENGVAR applies in this instance, and I would agree with the arguments of Tetron76. The Celestial City (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It is highly unlikely that it has been called Bullshit for most of its existence in any country - especially as a predominantly children's game. Since the common name in the UK today is Cheat, the common name in the US appears to be Cheat as well and the common name for most of its existence everywhere has been Cheat this is not a case of ENGVAR, since the current name of the article has only been used for a small portion of its existence by some people in a single country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . This game is most commonly known as bullshit in the U.S., so this is a case of WP:ENGVAR.  and it does not come close to exceeding WP tolerance for vulgarity.  In these cases we stick with the original name of the article, which is Bullshit.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * pagat has the following [] which does not make it a good source for determining the name of a game. If you note the page you give also is also called cheat.html. In this instance you are not talking about one variant of English over another but word of mouth versus published material.Tetron76 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For an example of an online source from David Parlett in The Guardian .Tetron76 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be guardian.co.uk. Like I said, ENGVAR.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the above Reference was to show that a renowned card expert calls the game cheat in a WP:RS with no reference to the other names. This is a person whose books are common in the U.S. not just the UK. For example "The Penguin Book of Card Games" dominates the references for wikipedia articles.Tetron76 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realise there is a reference outside of the text to other names but it still uses cheat as common name.Tetron76 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * and as for the .co.uk I agree is obviously an British source but to name but one the New York Times has no articles on this card game under the name bullshit. .Tetron76 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Cheat (game) per sources, with the additional bonus of losing the vulgarity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose for a whole slew of reasons. The biggest one is the use of the word "official" or should I say extra-use. You cannot call anything official relating to the game bullshit, there is no "British Cheat Association" there is no "Anglo Saxon Official Game Rules Organisation" to make these decisions for us. Instead, someone is taking an old book and calling that "official" and "proper". What is that? People are quoting wikipedia rules but we miss a pretty big one here! Thats a pretty creative use of the word official. Second, questioning the website pagat as being less oficial than a 50 year old book is equally dubious. There is NO authority on card games rules in general and the only one for a specific game I know of is for Bridge (and there are more than one), despite what anyone says. (If there was a publication on how websites with game rules are percieved, used and changed titles of games ,the overall use of namess vs. say, old "well researched" books (whatever that means, i.e. lack of footnotes or research methods) then Id say, thats a great source. As I see it now, we have someone who doesnt like the title bullshit and is using terms like "proper" and "authority" to change it, and discrediting a website and upholding a 50 year old book in the meanwhile. The only merrit this vote change has is based on the vulgarity of the title, which shouldnt stand since that is the name of the game. Bullshit. We wouldn't change the article on "fuck" to four leter word that starts with F. Nor would we change the article "cool" to "fresh" because 50 years ago someone wrote a book on the most comonly used word for coloquial expresions of things that are hip. Shabidoo | Talk 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support move to Cheat (game). As shown above, this is the normal name for it used in reliable sources. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Cheat (game), but only as per WP:COMMONNAME, "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." However, the alternate name Bullshit should be included in the lead paragraph. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Hmm.. this is a real tough one.. because I've only ever known it as "Bullshit" and that is the most common name as far as I'm concerned. However in Hoyle's Rules of Games it is referred to as "I Doubt It" and Hoyle is about as authoritative as you can get for card games. But since it's actually sold under the title "Cheat" (box cover image) I think I'm going to go with that as the title for the article, but the other alternative titles should still be named in the first sentence in the lead. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cheat is rarely used in the United States, "I doubt it" is sometimes used but my understanding is "Bullshit" is the common name. Here are book sources that use "Bullshit" to refer to the game,(from my very brief search of google) from a major publisher, a second from a publisher and another book reference, albeit self published . If anything it should be renamed to "I doubt it", but either way it is clearly an accepted usage in America, and so WP:RETAIN is applicable. I note that my sources aren't great for a detailed analysis of name usage, and I don't offer them as such, only as grounds to invoke RETAIN.  Monty  845  23:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Banana
I realize this sounds odd, but in some variants of BS that I've played, if someone lies about the card they put down, and no one calls out their bluff, once the next person puts down their card, the previous person, who bluffed, says "banana", to signal that they had been bluffing about their card. 98.217.230.157 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No point in making a bluff..?
There is a short demonstration of VALID (aka: non cheating or bluffing) plays as an example. ''For example, for a single pack without jokers, if the last player had claimed 3 Queens, the next player can either call cheat or choose to claim to play 1-4 Kings, 1-4 Jacks or 1 Queen. Although larger numbers could be placed, there would be little point as a player could simply call cheat against you.

I completely disagree that there is no point in claiming more then one Queen in this example. Even assuming P-1 did make a non-bluff play:
 * 1) P-2 and P-3 do not KNOW P-1 actually laid his Queens, only that he CLAIMED to lay them. P-2 now claims 2 Q's. P-3 isn't sure who bluffed so might not call, leaving P-1 to either call bluff, or claim to lay his 3Q's next turn. Since P-2 or P-3 don't know if P-1's second play is bluff, he could get away with it.
 * 2) Given the above, P-1 lets P-2's play go. P-3 could even have the other Q and uses P-2's bluff to his advantage. He also lets P-2's play go and now lays and claims his 1Q. P-1 now has to decide if P-3 had the Q he didn't. He calls bluff and ends up with 4 Qs and 2 random cards that P-2 played. Well done P-3 for not calling P-2's bluff.

Saying that Although larger numbers could be placed, there would be little point as a player could simply call cheat against you, is assuming that every play except yours is a non-bluff. This is clearly not the case. MrZoolook (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay ambiguity after calling cheat
Why should we keep a description which advocates one particular style of play that actually disagrees with the cited references (or at least those I can access online)? I changed it to a broader description that reflects the highly variable way this game is played. - 95.112.97.139 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I'm not sure if "the first player to call "cheat" has to add the entire pile to his or her hand" is a mangled version of an earlier ruleset or a house rule, but it matches the Pagat source to say that either the bluffer or the challenger draws the cards. --McGeddon (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what you can lie about
In the article and the talk pages, it's not clear on a couple things (unless I didn't read carefully). Are you allowed to lie about the number of cards you're putting down? Can you discard three cards and say "two queens"? Where are the cards discarded to? Is it in front of the player? Or a communal pile where it might be difficult to determine how many and which cards the player put down on that play. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Digging up my memories from back in 1965, you cannot lie about how many cards you are discarding.
 * And cards are discarded face down in a communal pile. Tesseract12 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

2 player?
The article lists the game as 2-10 player. But if you have 2 players, the other player will always know what cards you have because they have the rest. If the game must be modified for two players, the article should’ve state this. 173.34.38.3 (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pagat lists it as 2-10 with no special additional rules for two players.
 * After the first round you don't have all of your cards in view, because you'll have discarded some to the middle. But if both players have a perfect memory for all the cards that they've discarded, there's still scope for bluffing whether any particular cards are actually being discarded on any given turn. If we both know that we hold two kings each, I'm never going to call "three kings", but I may call "two kings", and you won't know if it's safe to challenge me. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We played it in 1965 with four players, so each player received 13 cards, as in bridge. Tesseract12 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Smuggling pictures
in the version we play (in the UK) no-one is allowed to play picture cards, you go from ace to 10 and back to ace again (or any variant up or down), but no jacks, queens or kings are allowed, so you have to "smuggle" them in with your normal play. makes for a much more interesting game! 2A00:23C6:6C85:4601:3D20:FBFA:177A:3F5A (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Another version
I played this game as a teenager back in the 1960's, but we played a different version of it. We did not play ranks in order. You could put down either 2, 3, or 4 cards, supposedly of the same rank, but it could be any rank. If you challenged somebody who was telling the truth, you had to take only those cards into your hand. Like, if you said "Three sevens" and I said "I doubt it", you would say "Here they are" and hand them to me. But if you got caught lying, THEN you had to take all the cards on the table into your hand. It makes sense that the risk of lying should be greater than the risk of doubting somebody who is telling the truth. Tesseract12 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)