This page is a translated archive of the original Académie des jeux oubliés, created on July 1, 2026, from the French original at salondesjeux.fr.
|
This page is a translated archive of the original Académie des jeux oubliés, created on July 1, 2026, from the French original at salondesjeux.fr.
|
La Bouillotte
La Bouillotte is a card game of chance and bluff dating from the 1770s, that is, from the end of the reign of Louis XV or the beginning of that of Louis XVI, contrary to the widespread idea that it was invented during the Directory. La Bouillotte was not a new game, but an adaptation of Brelan that allowed many people to take part. Whereas a game of Brelan was limited in time, a game of Bouillotte would only stop for lack of players. Indeed, although only five players were active, seated at the table, others waited their turn to replace one of the five as soon as he was wiped out. A wiped-out player could return to the game in his turn. This feature of Bouillotte sometimes led to it being called the perpetual Brelan. Stakes were not very large in terms of chips, and players could quickly be wiped out. This fast pace of play, combined with the movement of players who left the table, and that of those who took their places, gave the game its name. However, Bouillotte was not the game's original name but a nickname for this type of Brelan: people spoke of "bubbling Brelan" (Brelan bouillotte). By bouillotte one should understand here a kettle, and not the hot-water bottle used to warm a bed. As the game spread rapidly through fashionable salons, custom saw to it that only the nickname survived: people played "la Bouillotte." La Bouillotte was played assiduously until around the middle of the 19th century. To furnish fashionable salons, cabinetmakers made Bouillotte tables which were not necessarily topped with marble, but could be of various woods such as mahogany. The Bouillotte table was round, its size depending on the number of players, which could range from two to five, and covered with a green cloth. When it was covered with a marble slab, it was ringed with a brass gallery into which fitted an insert, covered with leather on one side and green baize on the other, giving the table three functions: guéridon, writing table, and card table. To light the table during evenings of play, candlesticks called "Bouillotte candlesticks" were used at first, then lamps given the same name. Some Bouillotte lamps could have a wooden base fitted with a groove to hold the players' cards at the end of a hand, but most often the cards were laid face up on the table in front of the players. The candlestick, or the Bouillotte lamp, most often had a base shaped like a small bowl, meant to collect, at each hand, a small portion of the chips, which were generally intended for the household staff at the end of the evening.
The Rules of the Game of La Bouillotte1. General Information The game of La Bouillotte follows for the most part the rules of Brelan; the reader should refer to them to understand what follows. La Bouillotte was first played with five players before it came to be preferred with four, but it could also be played by three and even two players. In this last case, some players called it the Brûlot. In every case, the presence of waiting players was necessary to replace wiped-out players. Without them, the game could only be called Brelan. Played with five it required a deck of 28 cards, and with four one of 24. Some later rules recommended a deck of 20 cards, keeping only the ace, the face cards, and the ten of each suit. Each player puts one chip into the pool and, as for the blind, one may play either with a forced blind or a free blind. Although every possibility of the blind is conceivable, it seems reasonable to allow only the blind, the counter-blind and, at most, the over-blind — only the first two players being thereby concerned. As for the forced blind, only the blind itself is compulsory, the counter-blind and possibly the over-blind remaining optional. The amount of the stake will be the same for all players, each taking at the start of the game 5 counters and 5 chips — in La Bouillotte. A counter being worth five chips, the stake is 30 chips. It is not possible to restake, and a wiped-out player must leave the table to be replaced by another waiting player who will have taken beforehand an identical stake to the starting one. However, if the incoming player is one who had previously been wiped out, he may restake an amount up to the sum of the stakes of the players in the game. The same applies to a wiped-out player who has no replacement. At the end of a hand, a player may freely leave the table with his winnings, which was called "doing a Charlemagne." The player who has thus left the table is replaced by a waiting player. Whoever has done a Charlemagne may return to the game in the order of the waiting line by restaking the base amount. Additional payments between players, tied to the holding of three-of-a-kinds, are a matter of agreement between the players at the start of the game. Commonly, a simple three of a kind was paid two chips, and a four of a kind, four chips. Three of a kinds are paid by all the players, whether still in the hand or not, to those who hold them even if they do not win.
In Brelan, rounds of betting end when no one has raised against the player who opened, or against whoever raised last. In La Bouillotte, an adjustment to this rule was made which consists of holding an additional round of betting, starting with the player still in the hand seated closest to the right of the opener or of the last raiser. During this round, players either confirm that they call with no more raising — they say "no more!" —, or they raise. In the case where everyone calls with no more raising, the opener or the raiser does not have to speak, being unable to raise against himself, and the rounds of betting are over. A player who raises automatically restarts the rounds of betting and, once there are no more raises, a new round is held to see whether everyone calls with no more raising. It should be noted that when, after a round of betting, only two players remain in contention, one having called the other's stake, the additional round is not carried out.
When the first in the deal, seated to the right of the dealer, has used his right to play blind by putting into play, before having seen his cards, the same number of chips as are in the pool, he will speak last during the first round. This is true even though play is opened by the amount of the blind. If players call the blind without there being a raise, the first player may raise on the blind he himself put on the table. This is the difference between opening simply and opening by playing blind. When the first player does not play blind — recall that he alone is able to do so —, he looks at his cards and may open or pass the turn to his neighbor on the right. Suppose the first player opens with the minimum required, which is the amount of the pool — as with the blind —, if there are one or more players who call without raising he is not permitted to raise, whereas he could have done so had he played blind. In the case of a counter-blind, what has just been said applies to the second player in the deal. He is the last to speak, the first becoming the last. In the case of a counter-blind, one returns to the situation of the simple blind for the moment of speaking. As a reminder, to play blind, counter-blind or over-blind, one must not have seen one's cards. That is the difference from opening the betting.
4.1 Method of Payment Adopted We saw in the rules of Brelan that one wins far more often by the point than by a three of a kind. We have established that the definition of the point implies that in the case of unequal stakes, after each of the partial payments it is recalculated as if the players already paid were no longer in the hand, and this indeed applies to the remaining amounts. As a result the first winning suit may not remain so for the following payment. The amount of these payments is called a pot today in Poker. There can be several pots.
Few old rule sets describe the procedure clearly. They even avoid doing so, merely alluding to it or giving only a very particular example where the point is not in play, the remaining players each holding a three of a kind. In this case, cited in Jacques Lacombe's Dictionnaire des jeux, there is no difficulty in determining the winners of the first then the second pot who are quite obviously the holder of the strongest three of a kind then the next one. This poses no difficulty because three of a kinds do not require the cards of the other players in order to be formed, which is not the case for the makeup of the point. So what procedure should be adopted to resolve this problem? Generally speaking, a player who has been paid is no longer considered to be in the hand. The calculation of points is necessarily made without moving the cards from one player to another. Once the first pot has been settled whoever won it gives up his status as a contender for that of a player out of the running, as if he had folded after the opening or a raise. But two new points of view clash over the winning suit. 4.2.1 There Can Be Only One Winning Suit This choice, well described in F. Dumesnil's Académie des jeux, published in 1865, holds that the winning suit is that of the point of the winner of the first pot. To determine the winner of the second pot, it suffices to see which of the other contenders holds the card of the winning suit that is highest among them — for example, if diamonds was the winning suit in the first pot, diamonds would also win the second. It will be seen that this way of doing things can run counter to precedence: suppose that, following proximity to the dealer on his right, the first of the contenders has 39 in hearts, the second 39 in spades but none in hearts, the third and last a weaker point in clubs but with a low heart card. The first, who went all-in, staked less than each of the other two, and he wins the first pot, being paid his stake by the other players. The first won because he had precedence over the second. Hearts is the winning suit for this hand. The first having been paid, one looks at which of the two remaining contenders wins the second pot: for this the first player's cards are now available to them, and the third with his low heart card counts a point of 39 in hearts. The third wins the second pot, because his point is of the sole winning suit, which is hearts. Yet the second also has 39 points in spades and might seem able to claim it under the rule of precedence — this rule had made him lose the first pot —, but the fact that it has been decreed that only one suit could win on a given hand strips him of the right to precedence. This procedure has the advantage of being simple and probably of making it easier for players to reason through their decisions during the rounds of betting. However, one scenario was not addressed by the author of the rule: if none of the contenders for the second pot holds a card of the winning suit, who wins? Applying the rule with full rigor, I would say that the two contenders in the second pot count no point, and, being thus tied, that the rule of precedence concerning them must be applied. 4.2.2 Several Suits Can Be Winning It is this method that we have adopted, where the suit of the point is reconsidered for the second pot, which comes, on the one hand, to fully restore the rule of precedence — in the previous example, the second would have won the second pot with his point in spades taking precedence over that in hearts of the third; it follows that the second loses the first pot through precedence and wins the second also through precedence —, and on the other hand, henceforth the fact of holding no card of the winning suit of the first pot no longer imposes the rule of precedence, each of the contenders making his point count even if it is of a suit other than that of the first pot. It is easy to understand that an agreement among all the players had to be settled before the start of a game of Bouillotte, on pain of creating conflicts all the more serious given that sums of money were at stake. Yet, with the exception of the late (1865) rule in Dumesnil's Académie des jeux, the various rule sets have remained either silent, or imprecise on the subject of multiple pots.
Le Palamède, a chess review, confirms for us, in its issue of 15 September 1842, the difficulty of the situation tied to the point when there are several pots, and its consequences on the relations between Bouillotte players. But the case set out in the article takes the subject from another angle: what happens when the player who has gone all-in with fewer chips than the other contenders does not win? Is there a second pot when the player who staked the smallest bet has paid the winner? The author of the article in the Palamède thinks that a suit cannot lose once it has already won, and therefore he favors applying the first procedure, which establishes one, and only one, winning suit. The author then calls for the arbitration of the players of Bouillotte, but he does not appear to have had a response, no article in the Palamède having followed up on that of 15 September 1842. On the other hand, the rule for Bouillotte included in 1865 in F. Dumesnil's Académie des jeux may be regarded as a belated answer going in the direction of the author of the Palamède article: yes, there can exist only one winning suit. The question raised in the Palamède is, however, ill-suited. Whichever of the contenders has staked the most money and holds the winning suit, in fact carries off all the stakes, since if one wanted to consider that there are several pots, he would win them all. One case has not been considered: what happens if the player who staked less than the others at play wins by a three of a kind and the others do not have one? My own view is as follows: since this winner has a three of a kind, his point is not taken into account. Once paid by all the players the amount of his stake, his cards become available to the other contenders who calculate their point. The procedure is then the same as usual.
After the deal, if all the players fold, there is a re-deal. The players each put another chip into the pool, and the same player deals again. The pool is now double — if there are five players, the starting pool is five chips, and after the re-deal it is ten chips. If all the players fold again, there is a second re-deal and everyone puts another chip into the pool, which becomes triple. The same player deals again. The amount of the pool is thus multiplied by the number of consecutive re-deals. As long as there are re-deals, the dealer remains the same. When the principle of the blind is applied, there can be no re-deals. Whoever has played blind takes the pool if everyone else folds.
Intended first to light the card table, the Bouillotte candlestick, then the Bouillotte lamp, is the place where players deposited a few chips at particular moments of the game for the benefit of the household's servants. The chips were at first placed on the wooden tray supporting the candlestick. With the creation of the Bouillotte lamp, the chips were placed in the bowl formed into the base of the lamp. The depositing of chips at the candlestick is linked to the blind, to the three of a kinds, and to the re-deals: — a
player who plays blind puts one chip at the candlestick;
|
