Hearts

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're bored and you want to stir up trouble during your next run of bad cards, try asking the table what the "official" rules for hearts are.

Can you throw a heart on the first trick?
Can you lead hearts before they are broken?
Do you have to throw the Qs at the first opportunity?
Is the Jd -10 points?
Do you pass cards? How?

I've never heard so many responses from so many experts. Good luck WSOP hearters!

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is from an old Phatmack post.

I think dealer's immediate left should be able to open a hand of hearts with any card and it should not be whoever holds the 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif.

I also think you should be able to lead hearts whenever you wish not only after someone has 'broken' them.

[Lottery Larry]

As a big Hearts fan, I play with the following rules when we play

- 2 of clubs must lead; we like to pass it to each other
- A heart or the Queen of spades can be thrown on the first trick
- Jack diamonds is -10
- You are not trapped into throwing the Queen if you aren't following suit.

To me that gives the best mix of skill and luck and gives you a chance to win if you get unlucky in a hold hand.

We pass left, right, across and then hold. 5-handed we play L,R, Double left, DR, hold.

Why do you like your rule about left of the dealer? Is this your poker background talking?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

OK.

I like hearts. I have played much. So I'll offer my "expoit" advice!

You cannot lead hearts till they have been cut. The 2c must open on the first trick. You can throw a heart on the first trick if you have no clubs and decide to break hearts. The Jd is nothing, it's just a diamond. You do not have to play the Qs at first opportunity, as long as you are not reniging by not playing it. Passing cards varies by house rules.

On yahoo I believe you pass two to the left on the first round, two to the right on the second round, two across on the third round, and no pass on the fourth round, tho I am not going to go play right now to verify my potentially faulty memory.

If you are REALLY a death-defying card player...

try playing hearts with a pinochle double deck (tens through aces, played in the same manner as pinochle, tens beat J,Q,K, first ace takes it, etc, but with otherwise hearts rules). Queens of spades are worth ten, hearts are one, and shooting the moon is sixty.

You WILL be weeping and gnashing teeth before the game is up!

al

[Al Mirpuri]

The thought was that to give a player the maximum chance of shooting the moon he should be allowed to lead off from a fistful of hearts if that helped his game plan. The reasoning behind not having to wait for hearts to be broken was similar. You could have a shoot the moon hand and because you are not allowed to lead hearts someone discards a heart on someone else's lead and a shoot the moon hand has become totally redundant. I think the number of shoot the moon hands - already few in number - become even smaller with these two rules in effect.

I really liked the idea of passing on the 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif and then playing a heart or the Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif on it. I was thinking of a version that did not allow point cards to be played on the 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif as the opening lead.

I also think the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif is better than the T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif as the positive card as you are more likely to be able to win it if you are dealt it.

I also agree with you that the Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif should not have to be discarded at the first opportunity. A player should be allowed to pick his victim based on the game score.

[Iceman]

The following rules maximize skill:

"Can you throw a heart on the first trick?"

Yes, or the Qs.

"Can you lead hearts before they are broken?"

No.

"Do you have to throw the Qs at the first opportunity?"

No.

"Is the Jd -10 points?"

Yes. Otherwise the whole game is about losing tricks unless there's a shoot attempt.

"Do you pass cards? How? "

No keeper hands. 3 left the first hand, 3 across the second hand, and 3 right the third hand, repeat.

"I've never heard so many responses from so many experts. Good luck WSOP hearters!"

Note that tournaments often use rules that increase the luck factor.

"I think dealer's immediate left should be able to open a hand of hearts with any card and it should not be whoever holds the 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif."

When the 2c has to lead, there's a lot of strategy with respect to whether to keep or get rid of clubs in the pass. Without that, the club suit essentially becomes pointless.

"I also think you should be able to lead hearts whenever you wish not only after someone has 'broken' them."

That would make shoots much easier, so I would avoid it. That way you could easily shoot with the highest hearts in your hand. Otherwise, even if you have the AKQJ of hearts you have to worry about a heart being played in a trick of another suit and have to keep high cards across the board, risking a high chance of getting the queen if your shoot fails.

[Phat Mack]

The thought was that to give a player the maximum chance of shooting the moon he should be allowed to lead off from a fistful of hearts if that helped his game plan.

That's why I don't care for the idea. With the 2c lead, it requires more skill to run them, and I am all for requiring the maximum amount of skill for the game.

I think requiring the Qc to be thrown at the first opportunity is a club rule designed to promote harmony. I don't like it. Hearts is essentially a game of collusion, with loyalties and partnerships changing with each trick. Anything inhibiting free play is detrimental to the game.

Any Barbu players out there? Barbu is Hearts on steroids. Here's a link:

http://www.pagat.com/reverse/barbu.html

[Al Mirpuri]

I also think that the best rule concerning shooting the moon points is that which allows the shoot the moon player to deduct 26 points from his game score or add 26 points onto all the over players's game scores.

Also, over the years I have read various authors stating that the Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif should be valued less than 13 points. I have read of 5 points and 7 points suggested for the Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Is everyone happy with the value of the Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif or does anyone play it with a value of less than 13 points?

[Lottery Larry]

I agree- the option to give or subtract points is best- unless you like short games.

I'd stick with 13 points for the Queen- it changes play and strategy a lot without the big penalty, especially with the Jd.

[Lottery Larry]

"I really liked the idea of passing on the 2c and then playing a heart or the Qc on it. I was thinking of a version that did not allow point cards to be played on the 2c as the opening lead. "

No, that is the wimpy MS Hearts rule. Allow for the glee of passing the 2c and then dropping the bomb on some poor fool with the 3c.

"I also think the Jd is better than the Td as the positive card as you are more likely to be able to win it if you are dealt it. "

I agree. Qd is too high- you should risk eating the Qs by needing to pull out three higher diamonds.

[Lottery Larry]

I agree with you on the 2c rule

One comment about this "I think requiring the Qc to be thrown at the first opportunity is a club rule designed to promote harmony. I don't like it. Hearts is essentially a game of collusion, with loyalties and partnerships changing with each trick. Anything inhibiting free play is detrimental to the game."

The only problem we've run into is when one fool in particular, who decided that he had no chance of winning or just because he enjoyed being a jerk, would decide that YOU were his intended loser of the game and he would save the Queen just for you.
You should learn to deal with a headhunter, just like poker, not wimp out with the "must lead queen" rule.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do you pass cards? How? "

No keeper hands. 3 left the first hand, 3 across the second hand, and 3 right the third hand, repeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the idea of no keeper hands. This means that you are not at the complete mercy of the cards once every four hands.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Do you pass cards? How? "

No keeper hands. 3 left the first hand, 3 across the second hand, and 3 right the third hand, repeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the idea of no keeper hands. This means that you are not at the complete mercy of the cards once every four hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. No matter how well you play, a fluke draw in a keeper hand can screw you. When you always pass cards, the luck factor goes way down.

[Lottery Larry]

I agreed with every one of your rule choices, except the no keeper one.

You have to throw a little bad luck in there, to make you work harder for skillful victory. Just like poker, you need those two-outer suckouts in there

[Phat Mack]

I was wondering about the point you bring up. I've played in hearts games without keeper hands. The reason given to me was that it reduced the element of luck and helped the more skillfull player. I always accepted this explanation, but now I wonder if playing a keeper hand requires more skill, or is it purely the luck of the draw?

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
I am all for requiring the maximum amount of skill for the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You DO realize that the discussion is about Hearts, right? There is no possible way to shoot the moon in hearts unless your opponents let you - honestly. Well, the only way is if the person that's passing to you has no semi-low hearts and really low non-hearts. There's really no excuse as far as I'm concerned for anyone to shoot the moon though, only on very very very very rare occassions when dealt almost a perfect hand to do it on.

Really, Hearts is only a fun game when played with people that don't truly understand the tactics and statistics of it, because then you have the opportunity to try and shoot almost every hand if you want to.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
You could have a shoot the moon hand and because you are not allowed to lead hearts someone discards a heart on someone else's lead and a shoot the moon hand has become totally redundant. I think the number of shoot the moon hands - already few in number - become even smaller with these two rules in effect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Given the 26 (+/-) point value of shooting the moon, the hands should be rare.

You can of course tho always CUT hearts on the 2c, just not lead them till their broken. I'll stick by my liking of this rule too.

These restrictions are what makes hearts fun (at least for me), it's sheer brutality.

I have never played (or even seen played) requiring the Qs to be discarded at first opportunity. Picking your victim is absolutely essential.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Hearts is essentially a game of collusion, with loyalties and partnerships changing with each trick. Anything inhibiting free play is detrimental to the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

The obviousness of the truth shone brightly that day. Such in the nature of hearts.

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem we've run into is when one fool in particular, who decided that he had no chance of winning or just because he enjoyed being a jerk, would decide that YOU were his intended loser of the game and he would save the Queen just for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hearts is a game of being a jerk and being jerked. It's a game of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Take away the jerkiness and you can just play chutes and ladders.

The must lead queen (or what-the-F-ever) rule is just a wimply way of saying you're too gutless to play REAL hearts.

[this post commented on ideas from several posts and is not directed specifically at larry]

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I gotta disagree here. Shooting the moon is not a near impossibility, it's just not easy. You have to make it appear at first as if you're getting screwed by your opponents giving up key cards to you, when in reality you need the few cards in the deck that can stop you from shooting the moon in your hand before you can finish the job. While it is true that it's easier against amateurs, it's not impossible against experienced hearts players, just harder. One key difference is that experienced players will realize what you are doing, even tho sometimes it's too late.

It's called strategy!

al

[Lottery Larry]

I think the most skill is displayed by overcoming the unlucky draws and bad starting hands.

You can't rest on your lead as well either- the "hold hand" as we call it can mess that up pretty quickly.

[Lottery Larry]

I agree wholeheartedly with the "gutless" sentiment.

"Hearts is a game of being a jerk and being jerked. It's a game of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Take away the jerkiness and you can just play chutes and ladders"

No, I mean a player who isn't playing to win when he COULD play to win and instead decides to dump points only on you, just so you can't win either.
Similar to slowplaying your friends- if you don't go after everyone in the same cutthroat fashion, it isn't poker... or (heartless) hearts

[Lottery Larry]

I don't know what kind of Hearts that you play but I disagree with almost everything you said

"There is no possible way to shoot the moon in hearts unless your opponents let you - honestly."
That is not true, especially with the Jd and hold the Qs rules.

" Well, the only way is if the person that's passing to you has no semi-low hearts and really low non-hearts."
Also not true. It is rare and should be to shoot the moon, but it contains skillful play and knowledge of your opponents, what they will pass and how they are playing.

" There's really no excuse as far as I'm concerned for anyone to shoot the moon though, only on very very very very rare occassions when dealt almost a perfect hand to do it on."
I already disagreed with this

"Really, Hearts is only a fun game when played with people that don't truly understand the tactics and statistics of it, because then you have the opportunity to try and shoot almost every hand if you want to"
First part, you're very wrong. Second part, THAT would be boring

[Lottery Larry]

"The Jd is nothing, it's just a diamond."

Al, you should try Hearts with this rule against experienced players. I think you will like it.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Jack diamonds is -10

[/ QUOTE ]

I read one author who stated that to shoot the moon when the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif was minus ten points you had to capture all the hearts, Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif and J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and for this feat you got to minus 36 points from your hand.

Of course, it is ridiculous. However, has anyone come across anything like it?

[Lottery Larry]

I've never heard that the Jd is part of the shooting hand. In fact, that takes away from the game in my opinion. Why would you want to make it harder to shoot?
What did the author- who btw?- say happens if you "fail" to shoot by only missing the Jd? Did you get +36, or only +26 and the Jd was -10 to someone else?

The way that we play, the Jd is completely separate. If the shooter captures the Jd as well, he can take -10 and give everyone else +26, or take -36 himself.

[WarDekar]

It doesn't matter if you trick them into thinking you're getting screwed if you hold the 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. of Hearts. You have to get a great deal loaded with Hearts to shoot, I think everyone should pass one low heart every hand for the specific reason of stopping someone from shooting. If all 4 players know what they are doing and do this, shooting takes no skill because the only way to do it is with a ton of hearts.

[Iceman]

"I read one author who stated that to shoot the moon when the J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif was minus ten points you had to capture all the hearts, Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif and J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and for this feat you got to minus 36 points from your hand. Of course, it is ridiculous. However, has anyone come across anything like it?"

It's incorrect. The Jd is completely independent from a shoot. You can shoot and not get the Jd, in which case you get -26, and whoever gets the Jd gets -10. Or you can shoot and get the Jd and get -36. Sacrificing a shot at the Jd in order to get rid of vulnerable cards that might ruin your shoot is an important strategy, and players who are too focused on the Jd risk letting their opponents shoot often.

[Vehn]

I think the best way to play is that at the end of a hearts match, there is one winner and three losers instead of a 1st through 4th place.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone should pass one low heart every hand for the specific reason of stopping someone from shooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you want to stop someone from shooting? Take the fun out of the game? Shooting makes it exciting, so why try to stop it?

[ QUOTE ]
If all 4 players know what they are doing and do this, shooting takes no skill because the only way to do it is with a ton of hearts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you're a good hearts player if you believe this. There is more than one way to shoot the moon. If I need to explain, you're lost.

al

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone should pass one low heart every hand for the specific reason of stopping someone from shooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you want to stop someone from shooting? Take the fun out of the game? Shooting makes it exciting, so why try to stop it?

- I'm not sure this makes that much sense, Al. I think that WarD is correct technically. However I think if you pass low hearts just to prevent shooting you are probably not going to win yourself.


[ QUOTE ]
If all 4 players know what they are doing and do this, shooting takes no skill because the only way to do it is with a ton of hearts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you're a good hearts player if you believe this. There is more than one way to shoot the moon. If I need to explain, you're lost.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

I think WarD is giving shooting too much credit for the skill side in the game that he is talking about.

[WarDekar]

What I'm saying is, IF you WANT to stop people from shooting, it's impossible not to succeed. It may take the fun out of the game, but personally I will always pass a low heart if I know the person I'm passing to has any skill in shooting and tries it given the opportunity. Why would I want to let someone shoot intentionally?

Obviously there are more than one way to shoot, BUT if everyone gets passed a low-ish heart, THEN the only way to do it is with a ton of hearts because a low heart will never win a trick without a ton. Maybe most people don't pass low hearts, I'm just saying that if everyone doesn't want anyone to shoot, no one is going to shoot - simple as that. Unless, of course, dealt an obscenely good hand.

[Vehn]

Part of passing is not allowing the person you're passing to to easily shoot. If you don't "protective pass" you will get murdered. You can't just dump Qs Ah Kh when you're short in them. Some times you need to "take one for the team".

[mikelow]

You can shoot the moon with the just the /images/graemlins/heart.gifA if you're loaded with high cards in the other suits.

Often with lots of hearts, you don't have enough control of the other suits to shoot the moon unless you can get the lead.

[Lottery Larry]

I would NEVER pass the A and K of hearts, unless I had a really strong shooting hand without hearts.

[Lottery Larry]

On most hands, that can be true. However, it cannot be always true unless everyone gets a low heart on EVERY hand. It never works that way for a whole game.

Therefore, "IF you WANT to stop people from shooting, it's impossible not to succeed" is often true but not ALWAYS true.

And there ARE times that you would want someone to shoot.

I grant you most of what you are saying here, but it is not close to 100%. This is more true for games with "no pass" hands in them.

[Lottery Larry]

Isn't that the way it always is? People do try to get psychic value out of coming in 2nd or not "losing".

Paid tournaments might be a different story.

[Vehn]

Obviously it depends on the structure. As I said the best way to play hearts is 1 winner 3 losers. Any other way illegitmatizes the game and rankings. I am of course speaking from my experiences on different online hearts leagues. In a game with with a 1st 2nd 3rd 4th at the end, passing becomes more about protecting yourself from taking points instead of not allowing someone to shoot. Which may be OK of course but I think it makes for a pretty boring game.

[WarDekar]

Who would? And even with a strong shooting hand sans-hearts, keeping the A around can't hurt too much in most cases unless it gets you stuck with the lead, but hopefully you should be able to lay off the A since you are probably mostly one-suited in most of those cases.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best way to play is that at the end of a hearts match, there is one winner and three losers instead of a 1st through 4th place.

[/ QUOTE ]

My gut tells me that I agree but what if some clown stops taking it seriously and two players lose because of one A-hole.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
...I think everyone should pass one low heart every hand for the specific reason of stopping someone from shooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so few shoot the moon hands that as a percentage play I cannot believe it worthwhile to pass a low heart for this purpose.

[Al Mirpuri]

I was having a peek at a book called Card Games For Dummies. Under Hearts it had two interesting passing variations. Instead, of playing keeper hands one could play scatter - that is throwing one card to each of one's three opponents or shmoosh - that is pooling all twelve passed cards, shuffling them and then dealing three to each palyer. Under the shmoosh variation a player may get cards back that he passed.

The book also contained a chapter on Barbu. A cursory look at Barbu made me think it too complicated to bother with. It seemed 'impure' if that is not too strong a word to use about a card game.

[dogsballs]

For Al and others who may be interested in searching the archives. I remember an old thread - long and detailed - called something like (I think) "Hearts: The EV of Eating Points". Well worth looking up, from what I remember, if you're into hearts.

From maybe 2000 or 2001 - dunno which forum, I can't remember. I think Easy E was involved. I'll PM him and ask if he knows where/when to find it.