Site Forum

I've come across various numbering systems for playing cards in our database. I think it's time we make a standard numbering system for playing cards.  My suggestion below shows through the 10s. The rest of the numbers (9 through 2) would follow the same pattern. Some sets have two jokers. Sometimes different, red & black, or some other difference.  I suggest "JOK" for jokers and a "VAR" Note if necessary.

Your proposed syatem sounds reasonable to me.  Should the order be A through 2, or should the 2 be at the top with K, A at the bottom, or should it be A, 2....Q, K?

-Tom

I'd think whatever is easiest for Admin to do a CardNum sort on a checklist.

If the set has to be re-sorted, this method sorts:

• 10
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 9
• A
• J
• JOK
• K
• Q

If that's how you like it, great. If not, another method may need to be employed.

I thought it was already done that way?

Tom poses a good question. How should the order be? I would think probably 2-A (2-10 then J, Q, K, A)

I like the JOK for jokers or JKR. actuallly would just J be OK? I know some people would want to number them but they are often NNO and which do you put first the b&w one or the color one? The Red one or the black one? Reasons to not assign them individual numbers or a specific order. Somtimes one joker will have copyright or card maker info on the bottom and the other will be blank in the same space. Sometimes there is just one joker if any. Later editions of cards will have logo changes and often the joker style changes as well.

Using the Club suit as an example, how about 01C to 13C or C01 to C13 for cards Ace through King. Joker could either be 14 or JOK, with info in the Note 2 field

I like the proposed numbering system. I think using A, J, Q, and K instead of 1, 11, 12,and 13 for the Ace, Jack, Queen, and King better represents the numbering of the card itself. However as Dan pointed out, the ordering isn't ideal.

On another note, I've noticed that many of the playing card sets are issued/sold in a two-deck bridge sets with each set having a different back. If you look at the two known bridge sets listed in the database, they are listed differently (see the 1963 Stancraft Football and 1974 Univ of Colorado Football). The '63 Stancraft Football lists both decks as a set while the '74 Univ. of Colorado lists one set as a parrallel. Do we need to establish a consitent way to list two-deck sets?

I agree that using A, J, Q, K is better than 1, 11, 12, 13 since that's not what we see on the card.

Custom re-ordering is possible. but currently only by Admin.

A 2-deck set with different backs should not be listed with one as a parallel or as 2 completely different sets. If anything, all cards have 2 VARs (back 1 or back 2). Anyway, let's stick to figuring out the numbering before tackling the next thing.

Currently, we need to decide on the order.

A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,j,q,k,joker

  or

2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,j,q,k,A,joker

And

Do we wish to group by "denomination" (all 4 aces together, as shown in C2C's example) or by suit (all 13 hearts together)?

Edit: And Joker-B and Joker-R (or even Joker-Black and Joker-Red) could be used for the 2 diferent jokers. Remember, the number field can handle a maximum of 15 characters.

Since the suits are symbols, not words, I like the "C, D, H, S". But with a 15-character field we could spell out the suit, A Club, K Diamond, Q Heart, J Spade, etc.  It would kind of more closely match what is on the cards.

Joker is usually spelled out, so I like the "JOKER" for card number. But it's not always a black and red color difference when there are two jokers.  I think the differences (variations) should be in Note and/or Note2, e.g., "VAR: "Joker" in black print". I've also seen sets where the Jokers were two different players.

Order:

A, 1, 2, 3,....10, J, Q, K, Joker

I think they should be listed by suit.

Suit order....should it be standard suit order (Spades, Diamonds, Clubs, Hearts): my vote - since it is how most decks come out of the pack.

or

Alphabetical (Clubs, Diamond, Hearts, Spades)

I think we should use the abbreviation (AS, 1S, 2S....etc) vs spelling it out (A Spades, 1 Spades, 2 Spades). I think the abbreviations are common knowledge but I do see the argument for spelling it out. Just including the letter could be confused with a variation.

I like the idea of listing the two Jokers as variations. Since Joker differences can vary by deck, it provides the flexibility of adding the delineater in the note 2 field (red joker vs black jocker; Big joker vs little joker; writing vs no-writing, etc.)