Talk:Hearts (card game)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.20 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker variant 

message: 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.23 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to shareware 

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordwow (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving hearts as a suit to [[hearts_(suit)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improbable Scenario 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I think I have seen that version played that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.20 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring Variant 50/100 

message: Which kind of Hearts variant is Michigan Hearts?  Someone taught me it a few years ago, but I've already forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.33 (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan Hearts 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm removing this section for the reason given. Jon 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: do it! 207.144.249.100 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheating section 

message: "Smoking out the queen"
When players try to lure out the player holding the Queen of Spades with lower Spades
VIP Hearts Data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkifix (talk • contribs) 12:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That refers to Black Lady (often misnamed Hearts) as the Queen of Spades is not a penalty card in classic Hearts which is the game described here. Bermicourt (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearts Specific Terms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Diamond symbol

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I have always known this game as 'Black Bitch' and nothing else. This is the common Australian name for it. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Is Wikipedia too PC to feature the word 'bitch'? It IS English.  MFdeS (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: At home in England we called this game "Chase the Lady". Negative points values were 2-10 for 2-10 of hearts, 11 for the jack, 12 for the queen and 14 for the king. The queen of spades was worth 30 points (and was banned from passing). The 2 of spades was removed for 3 players. What Wikipedia calls 'shooting the moon' was called 'going for (or getting) the lot'. At school, however, the game was called 'Black Maria' ('i' as 'eye'), or, somewhat less politely, 'Hunt the C*nt'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.242 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitch 

message: 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)
thread_title: Encyclopedia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Strategy section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional ? 

message: The article could be improved if it were split into two articles, one of them being play strategies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.27 (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.27 (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Championships and tournaments

message: 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)
replies: text: Not only might you but you have. Do you have any information to contribute to the article? Abtract 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/Evolution 0f the Game Missing From Article 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed it; since it apparently doesn't exist. GoodDay 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone further.Abtract 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Queens

message: 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)
replies: text: I have heard of, and played with, that option - just taking all the hearts, but no queen of spades. Huw Powell (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting the sun 

message: 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)
replies: text: Most of them are there. What else would you like to see included? Abtract (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Re-write

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good point (excuse the pun); why don't you make a suitable edit? Abtract (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct object of the game 

message: In the Strategy section, the article mentions the term "run" several times. While I play hearts quite frequently, I have know idea what this term means (though the context implies it's some kind of strategy). Someone should probably add something into the article that explains what it means to those who are unfamiliar with hearts strategy terms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catgirl the Crazy (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the context in which the word is used, I believe "run" means to shoot the moon, however I cannot be entirely sure, as I have not heard of this term either. Artichoker[talk] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting: "a long run of a single suit [...] can be used to keep the lead" So no, a "run" obviously involves a lot of cards of the same suit. Preferably in sequece without "holes". I guess "having a run" means that you play one card after another for quite a while and keep taking all the tricks. Probably even with changing suits. (Obviously in Hearts being able to do this is mostly helpful when shooting for the moon and not good for much else, so I can see where your confusion comes from.) --BjKa (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting the actual revision slightly over eight years ago when I made the above comment: "A player passing low hearts (especially two or more) is contemplating a run. A player passing a low spade is probably a novice. A pass of low cards in general means possible run." So no, not really referencing anything about a suit at the time that I made the comment. Artichoker[talk] 02:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a "run"?

message: In the common variation where "No penalty things(a heart or the king of spades) may be played on the first trick" (e.g. on the Windows version of the game), what happens if your entire hand is made of penalty cards? (There are 13 cards in your hand, and 14 penalty cards in all; so it is certainly possible, although highly unlikely, that this would occur.) --71.141.96.144 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the entire hand is comprised of penatly cards, then they will be able to play one of the first trick. This should probably be specified in the article, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Artichoker[talk] 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if entire hand is penalty cards? 

message: Hey all. I've copied this page into a userspace draft and made some heavy revisions. A good bit of the work is routine copyediting, but most of it is fixing the variations, which are currently a mess. Hooligan Hearts appears three times in the article, the Likha variant recounts the whole rules instead of just the modifications, and there are general inconsistencies throughout (when to use  instead of Hearts, whether to capitalize suits and ranks, etc.). I didn't bother removing the uncited material, but I've made it more readable. Thoughts? Accelerometer T / C 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft 

message: "A player who shoots the moon may be required to use the Old Moon rules, unless doing so would end the game with the shooter losing (e.g., in a 100-point game, if the shooter has 90, another player 95, and the leader 63, adding on a moon would sink the shooter). In such a case, the player may use New Moon instead."
This makes no sense to me. There is no way to score shooting the moon so that "doing so would end the game with the shooter losing".  Either everyone else gets 26 points, or the shooter subtracts 25. I am tempted to remove it, but perhaps it is just presented or worded poorly? Huw Powell (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is slightly confusing phrasing (at least the "adding on a moon would sink the shooter") - the shooter can only "lose" if you consider everyone except the low scorer at the end of a game to be a loser (which is a valid view, especially with some match scoring approaches).  If that view is accepted, then any time the shooter's score before the shoot is more then 26 points greater than the leader's score, and adding would put out some player, then adding would mean the earlier leader will remain the leader as the game ends and will be the winner.  So (by the view that everyone else is then a loser), the shooter loses.  I'm not sure of a brief way to clearly state that.  Of course, I play by the "shooter always chooses" rule, and at times (especially in money games where relative differences are important) it is reasonable for the shooter to choose to end the game, even if that would mean the shooter isn't the (outright) winner. 2602:306:C4A1:DE90:0:0:0:42 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made an attempt at clearing it up. Especially contrasting "hand" with "game" is probably helpful for non-native speakers. I also eliminated the "sink" as introducing a new jargon word during an explanation is certainly not the best idea. --BjKa (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon scoring part unclear 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearts (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: N.B.  This discussion is now closed. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Sometimes, it may be that a player without a club, throws the queen of spades (13 penalties points) or a heart (1 penalty point), it's a cheating, or playing to the chelem to penalize 26 the other players  or have the score of -26 or -52 if he pocks all the 52 cards.
Rappel, Sometimes games are ending with 53 points and no to 100 points. Manchesterunited1234 16:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheating (fr.wikipedia.org) 

message: I know it's cute .... it spells out love, see? ... but we should either change the image or the caption we have in the infobox, because clearly there's no 0 or Λ   rank in the game, and even if such a custom deck exists, it's wrong of us to put it front and center as if to imply   that this card game relies on a special deck.  If we do decide to keep the image, we should at least change our caption, since the hypothetical   exotic cards are not what we refer to in the text when we  talk of things like pips, royals, and so on. —Soap— 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but the current selection at Wikimedia Commons is poor. I'll see if I can upload a better one. I don't think the current picture is of an exotic deck; it's just been photoshopped. Bermicourt (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's now done. Bermicourt (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. —Soap— 23:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

text: That is true - good point. Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  we should change the image 

message: Hearts is an "evasion-type" trick-taking playing card game for four players, although most variations can accommodate between three and six players. It was first recorded in America in the 1880s and has many variants, some of which are also referred to as "Hearts"; especially the games of Black Lady and Black Maria. The game is a member of the Whist group of trick-taking games (which also includes Bridge and Spades), but is unusual among Whist variants in that it is a trick-avoidance game; players avoid winning certain penalty cards in tricks, usually by avoiding winning tricks altogether. The original game of Hearts is still current, but has been overtaken in popularity by Black Lady in the United States and Black Maria in Great Britain. 2603:8081:3A00:92B8:8C04:EA22:B601:A43A (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphorical uses 

message: As someone who is new to this game, I think it would be good to elaborate what "capturing" cards means. That term is used but unexplained in the article. (The "winner" of a trick "captures", or obtains, all the cards played in that round, right?) Eatmorepies (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Yes, "capturing" is often used to mean picking up or taking certain cards - typically counting cards or penalty cards - during play. Usually they are 'captured' in that the player takes the trick containing the card or cards concerned. I've added an entry at the glossary and linked it in the article. If you have any questions about this or other card games, let me know. I'm here to help. Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bermicourt Thanks. I've revised the "Playing" subsection in the modern rules to accomodate this explanation, and moved the link to the glossary there, too (since the cards are captured during play: not during the calculations stage) Eatmorepies (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Capture" description