World of Card Games

This morning, an update was applied to fix a bug which caused some players to be unable to see existing ranked tables in Hearts.

The new rankings have generated some discussion! Constance, a Hearts player, has written today's guest blog on that topic. Please take a look at what she has to say. - Marya

I am delighted to see ELO ratings being applied to Hearts, which should strengthen the competition. The current ELO ratings reflect place position - that is, 1st is better than 2nd, is better than 3rd, with 4th being the big loser. Classic Hearts rewards only 1st place; there are 3 last-place finishers - regardless of score. I am in favor of this Winner-Take-All position and Marya has offered me the opportunity to defend it.

For a game with such simple rules, Hearts is remarkably complex. The primary goal for Low is to end the game as quickly as possible by eliminating High or to increase his lead at any opportunity.  A temporary, yet shifting alliance is formed by the other players who attempt to unseat Low using their knowledge in identifying the Q-holder, suits in which players are void,  and how many of a suit are outstanding. This forms the complex strategy of the game: teamwork with a selfish goal - becoming Low.

Part of the strategy is trusting  your 'team'  to not hurt you in the effort to go after Low. It means protecting High, who may be on the brink of elimination, by taking some of his point-tricks and possibly helping him moon. It means doing what is necessary to prolong the game at the expense of increasing your own score:  taking a Q to stop a moon, not leading spades until you are sure it will not hurt the wrong person, leading suits which Low holds and in which the Q-holder is void, passing cards that will not prematurely end the game, avoiding dumping the Q on first opportunity until you are reasonably sure it will target Low. 

Having a rating system which has proportional rewards weakens the game. Strategy will change to the extent that ratings matter. Players will begin to strategize for place position. Trust will deteriorate. Dumping the Q and ducking points will become more frequent, at least as end-game approaches or in games with skewed scores.  If Low has a substantial lead, he will most likely be given a pass by the 'team' who will now turn on each other for 2nd place and a resulting ELO rating increase, in most cases.

Decisions become more conflicted in Proportional-Reward games. A 2nd place player may end the game by dumping the Q on high in order to ensure a 2nd place position. A moon-stopper may not be employed if it results in the player's own  position to be shifted downward. In Winner-Take-All games, where  2nd is no better than 4th, players make decisions that will extend the game - not to end it. There is no benefit to ending a game in which the 'team' places last to a single winner.

I have no doubt that there will be players who will continue to play traditional, classic Hearts and that at the beginning of the game, everyone will strive to win. But traditional players will find themselves at odds with an increasing number of new players who are conditioned to a Proportional-Reward game of Hearts, bringing with it a changed strategy - one which includes trying to improve place position behind the winner, especially if it appears too risky to go after Low.

The primary argument I have heard in favor of a 2nd place reward is to keep players in the game longer - that they find a consolation prize justification that they did better than 3rd & 4th, that there is no incentive for high-scorers to remain in the game just to come in last. To that I say So What! Who wants to play with people of such  fragile egos anyway? On this issue, I would like to reference Marya's Hearts Strategy & Tips: "With 4 players in Hearts, and only 1 winner, your odds of losing are good: 75%, all other things being equal. So if you are going to play Hearts, you need to be willing to accept taking a loss in most of your games. The game is a good test of character, in this respect!" 

I leave with a quote from G Berns: "To watch 3 excellent hearts players playing cooperatively, stalking the low-scorer adept at evading, is to watch hearts at its very best."