[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I wonder how yours differed.

Here is the complexity I had to get straight: Flipping was conducted by scaling a card targeted to end up close to a wall or other upright surface. The closest card won all flipped.

1 - A leaner won over any card flipped, independent of that card's proximity to the base of the stoop. But leaners only paid single. Winner took all of the cards flipped.
2 - The way you beat a leaner is:
2a = knock it down with your flipped card
2b = get a leaner which partially covers the existing one
2c = if the second leaner does not partially cover the initial one, it is a leaner tie and both split the take of losing cards
But there is an exception to 2a. as follows: if the knocked down leaner lands partially on top of your card, your card is instantly declared a loser, and play proceeds until everyone has flipped the amount of cards previously specified. At the conclusion of flipping, the card closest to the base of the stoop takes all cards. There is no status to being a former leaner. The only thing that counts is the proximity to the stoop.
But there is an exception to this exception. Specifically
e - The stoop proximity winner is trumped by any card which partially covers it. If several cards cover it, they all split the winnings if none can be determined to be on top of the others.
If one can be established as on top, the on top card wins (but this would be on top of the cards which are on top of the card closest to the stoop base).
Of course the opposite to this exception is also true. That is if you knock down a leaner and your card winds up on the top of it, you take possession of the closest point either card has to the stoop base (unless a subsequently flipped card knocks you off of your "on top" position (much like shuffleboard).

Any questions?