Talk:Hearts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Joker variant 2 External links to shareware 3 Moving hearts as a suit to hearts_(suit) 4 Improbable Scenario 5 Scoring Variant 50/100 6 Michigan Hearts 7 Cheating section 8 Diamond symbol 9 Chinese hearts variant and Ten of clubs scoring variant 10 Bitch 11 Encyclopedia 12 Variants 13 Strategy section 14 Traditional ? 15 Improving the article 16 Championships and tournaments 17 History/Evolution 0f the Game Missing From Article 18 Large-scale rewrite 19 Queens 20 Shooting the sun 21 Re-write 22 References 23 Correct object of the game

[edit] Joker variant

This is actually one of my favorite games. We used to play, in college, a variant using a joker. Would this be appropriate for inclusion here? Chef Lord 22:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Wait, let me see if I am getting this right. You are adding only one Joker to a 52 card deck, and there are four players, right? Does the Dealer then start the deal by laying out one card, face down, for use as a kitty? If that's the case, I can see all kinds of variants with that sort of thing. For instance, the winner of the first trick might take the kitty, and add it to his hand, and that would probably turn out fairly advantageous, I think.

[edit] External links to shareware

It looks as though 67.42.55.21 (Contributions) is trying to promote his/her own shareware at Solitaire, Euchre, and here at Hearts. I'm thinking these should all be removed, and will do so if no one objects. Is there a general policy or consensus about linking to proprietary software in the 'External links' sections of pages like these? -- DarkNight 18:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more links to external software, rather than fewer? Whether proprietary or not?

[edit] Moving hearts as a suit to hearts_(suit)

I think it would be good to move hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs to hearts (suit), spades (suit), diamonds (suit), and clubs (suit), respectively. Hearts and spades would then be left for the games by those names instead of being used as single pages for two different topics. Thoughts? -- DarkNight 15:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I like this idea, I think it would make it much clearer what each page was discussing.

PirateMonkey I agree. I think someone should do it. --July 6th, 2005

[edit] Improbable Scenario

What happens if you are playing with the rule that you cannot play a point card on the first trick but you are dealt either all the hearts or 12 hearts and the queen of spades?--El Slameron 23:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It's extremely improbable. First off, you'd need to get 13 exact cards out of 52, I'm not going to do out the math, but suffice to say, it's rarer than a Royal Straight Flush by several times. That being said, three out of four times this occurs, you'd be given the option to pass, so if you were dealt that, you'd be forced to pass 3 cards. If you passed 3 cards and then were handed these three, it's more imporbable because now you've lost any chance to cover the opponent you passed to and kept the Queen of Spades with no other spades, really illogical. So in conclusion, you'd need: All 13 cards to be dealt to you on a non-passing hand. If it were to happen, you'd be allowed to play a trick on the first hand though, because they are "Gentlemen's Rules" so that rule is the first to go, of course, you'd want to play your Queen of Spades first, so they'd immediately know you had every heart, which means you'd pretty much be irrelevant for the rest of the hand (because you'd be playing point card after point card with no way to lead). So in effect, you wouldn't even have to play the hand because whomever won the trick would get one heart.

• The second rule of Hearts club is, "Don't talk about hearts club". Well its not really, the secong "gentleman's rule" is: "No player may play a penalty card ("blood") on the first trick, unless the player has nothing else (an extremely unlikely situation)." and if you had 10 point cards, and you passed your non-points (for a bit of fun) then you may well get 13 point cards. Then you could play these off to whoever wins the hands. As long as you don't win a trick (containing the 14th point card), you should end up with no points hooray. --Ballchef 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring Variant 50/100

My aunt taught me a scoring variant where hitting 50 exactly still takes you down to 0, but hitting 100 exactly, instead of taking you to 50, takes you to 1 below the lowest player. If the lowest player has 51 at the end of the hand and you hit 100, you hit 50 first, then consequently go to 0. In general, this rule for 100 keeps the game closer. Daniel A Lewis 04:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have seen that version played that way.

[edit] Michigan Hearts

Which kind of Hearts variant is Michigan Hearts? Someone taught me it a few years ago, but I've already forgotten.

[edit] Cheating section

Is the cheating section really necessary? There's not a lot that's Hearts-specific in there (all of the examples are just examples of how to apply a standard way to cheat at cards to the game of Hearts). Should perhaps the section be moved to a new cheating at card games article (perhaps merging with the cheating at poker article)? - Flooey 01:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this section for the reason given. Jon 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond symbol

On this page, the symbol for diamonds shows up as a red empty box (undefined character). Anybody else having this problem, or any ideas what character set I'm missing? All the other suit symbols show up fine. Neil916 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the diamond symbol on the page, but Wiki's diamond always comes up diminutive in comparison to the other suits for some reason. Morganfitzp 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese hearts variant and Ten of clubs scoring variant

These two sections say about the same thing. Chinese Hearts | Ten of clubs --75.20.216.65 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitch

The article says that the game is also called "Black Bitch", "Slippery Bitch", "Suck Me Fuck Me Bitch". Is this true? Can somebody confirm this? --75.20.216.65 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A search online reveals few sites stating such names , but no real source, a search is sort of hard most of the results give porn sites.13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have come across the game with many different names either involving the words black, bitch or Maria. Although "Suck Me Fuck Me Bitch" I am not convinced about. Notably the first time I ever saw it called Hearts was on Windows which I am guessing is the more common US name. (Elephant53 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Encyclopedia

This has grown into a manual on how to play and multi variants rather than an encyclopedia article. It seems to me we should change tack and reduce the size by eliminating much of the unecessary detail. Any thoughts? Abtract 09:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variants

After adding 2 types of variation of the game , it really looks like it's turning into a manual. I do agree , but maybe starting a new page for the variation would be a good idea. Qbamb 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy section

I.m.o. the strategy section reads more like a hearts advanced user's guide, it's a good read but shouldn't it be more compact? Marminnetje 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's needs compacted a great deal, I see several cases of a highly specific strat followed later by a generalized version of the same strat. (Example: removing all diamonds and later on creating a void in a suit) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joncnunn (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

By the policies of Wikipedia, no article is supposed to contain original research and should not be a manual or guide. I'm not sure to what extent this article violates those policies but I'm pretty sure this article needs sources and to cite them. I'm not sure how one would go about that since there seems to be a limited supply of information on the net on this topic. I believe we could just present a bunch of strategies and refer to them as the opinions of the various sites on strategy and give citations for the webpages espousing those strategies. There are also some physical publications, however, I'm not sure if those are suitable for Wikipedia. Kevin77v 06:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional ?

I heavily dispute what is being called the traditional game here, especially as this is a variant I have never come across before. It is obvious that this game has many different names and many different variants and is also very popular. I don't believe there is any form that can be called the traditional variant. So I suggest the naming be amended here unless somebody can come up with a proven history of the game which I believe dates back quite a few centuries. (Elephant53 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Improving the article

The article could be improved if it were split into two articles, one of them being play strategies.

[edit] Championships and tournaments

Does anybody know if there are Hearts leagues in the United States, or elsewhere in the world? Do any of these leagues have championship tournaments, and can acclaim the winners as champions?

The only more or less global Hearts championship tournament being held these days is the Grand Prix World Series of Hearts (see www.grandprixtournaments.com), although they do not use the standard rules. Grin0012 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History/Evolution 0f the Game Missing From Article

I actually came to this article hoping to find info on the etymology of this game's development, maybe a bit more about it's history as well. Unfortunately, there's none of that, just gameplay and strategy. So, for those working on this article, might I suggest that this might be a good direction to take it? --Reverend Loki 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only might you but you have. Do you have any information to contribute to the article? Abtract 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large-scale rewrite

I've done a much-needed edit, making it clear that many of the "rules" given in the article are only variants and that other variants also exist. (Some of the rules given as rules are not even all that common; for instance, I'd never heard of the "shooting the sun" variant before.) I also removed a lot of duplication (facts stated twice in different places) and sheer waffle in the strategy section. If anyone has any quarrel with details of my edit, please discuss it here. 91.105.33.24 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Why don't you get a name? It's very simple. Abtract 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooting the sun is a rare rule, but it's in the books. Zasamonde 00:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queens

Has anyone heard of this variant? ... does anyone have a citation for it? If not it should be removed. Abtract 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it; since it apparently doesn't exist. GoodDay 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone further.Abtract 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Havent heard of it? you guys must live in a pretty secluded and couped up world. Anyone and Everyone who plays hearts in Australia plays Queens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.36.197 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah Oz sweet Oz ... if true add it back with a citation. (and get a name it makes life easier). Abtract 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shooting the sun

Surely shooting the sun is a variant and it should be indicated as such (I won't change it, I could be wrong) --UnnamedGent 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I have completely rewritten the article as follows ... Moved most of the strategy (unchanged) into a separate article Hearts (strategy) ... Concentrated on one version (4 players 26 penalty points) ... Removed superfluous material and greatly simplified it to make it more readable ... tried to make it more like an encyclopedia article than a manual of how to play. This was discussed a while ago (see above) and many editors agreed it was needed but none of us did anything so I have had a go. Note I have done nothing with the citations but I have removed all the external sites which just seem to be moneymaking play sites. I would prefer it if you could comment here or make constructive edits to the main page rather than simply reverting the whole lot but of course you will do as you think best. :) 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)

I think it might be nice to include a list of the different variations with a short description of each. I find them to be interesting ways to introduce alternatives to the classic game and stimulate interest. I understand that they may seem to clutter the encyclopedia look of the article, but I found them to be interesting and showed the variety of ways hearts can be enjoyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenthaler (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are there. What else would you like to see included? Abtract (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not as experienced on the wikipedia as many of you, but I would have liked to have known about many of the variations that exist, especially the double deck version for when my extended family plays. But when I looked up hearts during Christmas time I didn't see a section on any of the variations. I do notice that there is a See Also section, but didn't realize that it included variations on the game. I see that some of the discussion on this page is about including or not including different variations like Chinese Hearts, joker variant, shooting the sun, and I would like to include domino hearts, spots hearts and auction hearts. I know that it is important to keep wiki clean and uncluttered, but perhaps a list of these variations would be nice to have with a page for each if so desired. Does this sound good. I would be more than happy to create it if you're keen on the idea.Lindenthaler (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a manual on how to play Hearts, my view is that the main article should concentrate, in a clear and concise way, on the core game which I believe is 4 players and 26 points with shooting the moon included as a very common option (note this is not the game that I play so I did not choose it for personal reasons; I am used to 4 players, 130 total points ands no shooting the moon). Minor variants for a different number of players should be included by a passing mention but significant variants should be given a separate page and mentioned in See also; this is what I did with your info on 8 players. The problem with the previous version of this article is that all the variants were mixed up and no clear thread was visible; also there was a large strategy section and these are always problematic because strategy tends to be a personal thing. To help with this I have hived off most of the strategy section into a separate page. To give an answer to your specific point about other games linked to hearts, yes I would give them separate pages and add a see also to this page as for Double Deck Cancellation Hearts. I watch with interest as you create new articles. If you want help in any way please just ask on my help page. :) Abtract (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and get to work on it this weekend. I agree with much of your advice and will try to follow as best I can.Lindenthaler (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have rephrased an number of sections of this article using Parlett as the senior reference because (a) it is the oldest reference, and (b) it is the only book. 82.1.57.47 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct object of the game

While it may seem accurate to say that the object of the game is to avoid point cards in tricks, this is not entirely accurate. It is more accurate to say that object is to end the game having collected the fewest points. While this may not seem like much of a difference, it actually is a significant one. This becomes obvious when you consider that there are situations in the game where collecting points is desireable. Namely, when preventing or attempting a moon. In addition, it is not necessarily the person most successful at avoiding points that wins most often, but the person who targets them more accurately. In fact, I would say that targetting points is a much more effective strategy than merely avoiding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin77v (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point (excuse the pun); why don't you make a suitable edit? Abtract (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)