 |
| Hearts Card Game! |
The Hearts rules at World of Card Games require that after cards are dealt, each player must remove 3 cards from their hand and pass them face-down to another player. This is done in a particular order: After the first deal, cards are passed to the left. After the second deal, they are passed to the right. After the third deal, they are passed to the player across from them. And after the fourth deal, no passing is allowed - so you are stuck with the cards dealt to you. This is the "no-passing" or "hold" round.
Another rule is that if you are so lucky as to take all the tricks in a hand, you have "shot the sun", and the other players get a penalty of 52 points. It's a bit like shooting the moon (in which you take all the point cards and penalize others with 26 points), but probably involves more luck than skill.
In addition, there's a rule at the site which says you cannot lead hearts until hearts have been broken, or if you have no other cards except hearts cards in your hand. This rule is painful when you are holding just the Queen of Spades and all other cards are hearts cards. In this case, the rule forces you to lead the Queen! You'll almost always take that trick, leading to a 13 point penalty. Often, getting into this situation is just due to bad luck.
I've had a few requests to change the rules as follows:
(1) Remove the "no-passing" round. The "no-passing" round adds more of an element of luck to the game. You may get stuck with a lone Queen of Spades, which usually doesn't end well! You may also get stuck with a very good set of cards - it's all down to luck.
(2) Remove the "shooting the sun" penalty, so it is treated the same as "shooting the moon".
(3) Allow a person to lead hearts if hearts have not been broken, and they are holding only hearts cards and the Queen of Spades.
I have chatted with Joe Andrews, who is a leading expert in card games, and who ran Hearts tournaments for many years. He told me that the rules above all applied at these tournaments, so that skill was emphasized over luck. This is the reason that I'm proposing the rule changes. In particular, the strategy for passing cards is a huge factor in Hearts, and having a "no-passing" hand adds excessive randomness to the game.
I'd like to get some feedback from players at the site. Please let me know what you think about these rule changes in the comments.
97 comments:
Leave hearts the way it is... if you start changing rules in hearts then people will want the rules changed in other games too, I don't like it when I don't have enough meld to make the board in pinochle, it's frustrating, but those are the rules and when all is said and done it equals out in the end. The way the rules are in hearts now is the only way I have ever known, and you shouldn't change rules of a game just because someone complains.....I opt for leaving them alone.
Hi Marya,
and first of all, thank you for running your site: everyday I enjoy some minutes on it.
My humble opinion is that I agree with the points above, except the first; I like to play some hands where I feel that nobody has emptied some suit. I mean: rule #2 is too punitive (52 points!), and #3 also, maybe; so I agree to delete them. But rule #1 is nice - it adds some randomness (1/4 of the times) to the game. Just an opinion from a not very good player.
Have a nice day, regards,
1000 Watts
Trying to stay in order.
One, the randomness of the hold hand forces the player to develop the skill of making the best of, or completely turning around a bad hand. I believe it to be one of the skills of the best players. To do away with it would preclude the development of that skill.
Two, completely agree with doing away with the "sun". Absolutely luck. It cannot be done without the luck of the draw.It also mostly results in an empty table if it doesn't end the game.
Three, there is a skill level involved in avoiding this situation. There is also a skill level involved in placing an opponent in that situation. I have played with a rule that allowed for the laying of the queen on the first trick if it was the only black card in your hand. That was a great deal of fun on the rare occasion you could maneuver yourself into position to use it. Just a suggestion.
The only one that I'm just fundamentally opposed to is number one. That would change the game in a way that would make me stop playing.
I don't like the "shot the sun" because I'm not used to it and it seems to be a huge advantage for such little skill, so that can go.
The "no pass" doesn't make any difference to me, so whatever the majority says is fine with me.
I'm not in favour of playing hearts before they are broken, but it's not a deal breaker, so whatever the majority dictates.
What I won't accept is playing hearts or the Q on the first trick. I would stop playing hearts if that were the case.
Thanks for ALL you do, Marya!
Kaycie/KCK/Old Goat's wife
I agree with Joe Carr, shooting the sun basically ends the game, haven't yet seen anyone else win when that happens. But the randomness of the hold hand and not being able to play hearts before they are broken are aspects of the game that good players learn to deal with (even if it means holding your nose and getting the hand over as quickly as possible to move on to the next hand...).
And overall it is a great site and a great game, thanks for supporting this so well!
The rules of the game are fine as they are. Changing it to make it "easier" won't effect the skill level of players. What I really would like is to have a silent table where no chat is allowed. Often times the chat is used by players to mock and swear at others. Rarely have I played a game where the environment is polite. I would also suggest the kick function be brought back. Often times a player will stall a game on purpose out of spite and sour grapes. The kick player function has to be used by 3 players for this to work and not be abused. I've really enjoyed this game and this site for many years but as of late it has become a site where unhappy people go to to lash out at others. What a shame...
Hi Anonymous @ Nov 6 2017 12:41 PM - you can make the table silent to yourself by choosing the Hide All Chats setting. It applies to you, only, so other people can say what they want, and you can effectively ignore them. There is no way for them to know that you have chats turned off.
The "kick player" functionality operates on team games only. The problem is that it could be abused at a game like Hearts, where all 3 losing players might collude to kick out the winning player. You will probably assert that this is unlikely, but I can guarantee it would happen. These unfair situations might only happen rarely, but when they occurred it would be very wrong and very upsetting to the victim. In team games, it is assumed that "kick player" is a reasonable feature, because it means that even your teammate does not like you, and so it is justified.
Don't change anything on this site! A pure game can only be ruined by changes. Any player has a chance to win. Change that with rules. and you have pro football!!!!!!! I don't want to play in a tournament .
(1) Remove the "no-passing" round. The "no-passing" round adds more of an element of luck to the game.
>>> I have played both ways, but I am in favor of leaving it in – it’s part of the game. Although I am sure it would be to my advantage :).
(2) Remove the "shooting the sun" penalty, so it is treated the same as "shooting the moon".
>>> I don’t care for the "shooting the sun" double points. Not a big deal, since it is pretty unusual.
(3) Allow a person to lead hearts if hearts have not been broken, and they are holding only hearts cards and the Queen of Spades.
>>> I am opposed this change. It’s part of the game – better players sometimes recognize the situation and play to push a player into the situation. Advantage to the better player.
And, I echo 1000 Watts, thank you for running this site and doing a good job. Attitudes of players are generally good - you set a good tone.
Ramjet
Hi Mary
1. Keep the no-pass round
2. Reduce the 52 point sun penalty to 26
3. Leave the rules on when hearts can be played as is.
Phil
Hi Marya,
Getting rid of shooting the sun is the only change I would agree with.
The turning off chat doesn't solve the problem of idle chatting slowing down the game.
Thanks for running the site.
Hi Mary
Agree with reducing 52 point penalty to 26 and getting rid of the sun.
Leave the other 2 as is.
Phil
The no passing round is good
shooting the sun is bad
the other one I don't care
Keep the rules as they are...
Keep it the way it is.
Good Website Marya
With points 1 and 3, I would be happy either way, if things remained the same, or if those proposed changes were made. As far as shooting the sun goes, it happens very rarely in my experience of over 1500 games. It adds a bit of excitement when it does happen. And, there is some strategy involved, when it appears that someone is going to shoot the sun, I will retain the cards that I think will thwart their effort. I'm in favour of keeping this shooting the sun penalty.
Thanks
Whitewolf
I vote for keeping the rules as they are, although I can see eliminating the "shoot the sun" thing.
When I was in college (50 years ago) we played a variation where getting the Jack of Diamonds was GOOD; i.e. a player who got that received -10 points as opposed to +13 for the wicked queen or +1 for each heart. I can't recall who suggested that...it may be a regional thing. I rarely have encountered it since.
By the way, what is the difference in colors for G's (guests)?
I'd be good with all three of your proposed changes.
Thanks............Centurion
If it aint broke don't fix it. Everything is fine the way it is. Thanks for the card games Marya!.
In the old yahoo games we used to play no passing but the 4some had to agree and sometimes after agreeing one player would change. I like the not playing a no passing game. It stays with the skill of the game---Like you said and it has happened to me many times no passing hand and i end up with the q
Hi Mary -
Eagleman here. I am in favor of leaving 1 & 2 as they are. There are times I receive all lower card on the no pass hand - and I can usually escape without any collateral damage. That takes a bit of skill to avoid getting the wicked queen dumped on you. Nine times out of ten, when passing cards - you receive higher cards in return, and that is exactly what happens.
I like the proposal to allow someone with all hearts and the Q to be able to lead the heart - it may avoid a big score.
In response to the "if it ain't broke.." comment, the point of the changes is to fix that which is "broke", especially in ranked games which are set up to reward skill, not luck.
I agree with the hearts expert on all three rule changes. Anything you can do to reduce randomness is a needed change.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Constance
Hi Marya,
I think the majority of those that have already weighed in pretty well paint a consistent picture. I was totally unaware of the Shooting the Sun option, but agree that should it happen, that would almost certainly end the game. My option would be as follows:
1. Keep the no-pass round
2. Reduce the 52 point sun penalty to 26
3. Leave the rules on when hearts can be played as is.
Sleuth37
Changing the Shooting the Sun to 26 points is the only rule change I agree with. I used to play on the old Mplayer site and that had the booting feature, so I saw the positive and negative affect it caused.
Thank you for the site and allowing feedback.
I am 100% in favor of the three proposed rule changes. They are exactly the rules I learned from my upperclass roommates when a freshman at the University of Illinois in 1963. They are exactly the rules that we have always played at home with family and friends. They are exactly the rules favored by Hearts guru Joe Andrews in his book "Win at Hearts" which I purchased in 1984. They are exactly the rules for the national tournaments, all of which have been conducted by Joe Andrews. I highly recommend Joe's book.
Microsoft has attempted to take over the world. They instituted different rules some years ago, and eventually the crowd assumed they were standard. Those odd Microsoft rules all reward luck over skill. For luck I'll play Bingo. Unfortunately, most online card playing sites eventually bowed to Microsoft rules.
With a no-pass hand, it is virtually assured who will take the Spade Queen. Shooting the Moon is nearly impossible, which takes away much of the fun of the game. There is also little need to defend against a Moonshot. As Joe Andrews notes, passing is an inherent part of Hearts strategy, not to mention the fun.
I suggest that what I'll call "Andrews Rules" should at least be an option here. Give them a try. About fifteen years ago this same discussion came up at the DreamQuest site. Within a few weeks, almost everyone was choosing the "Andrews" option. It was then made the default option. DreamQuest still makes card game software, but unfortunately abandoned its online playing site some time ago.
If you feel you are a skillful Hearts player, then please give the "Andrews Rules" a shot. I promise you will be glad.
KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS
KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS
2 rules should stay the same, but I think when you only have the queen of spades and hearts you should be able to play a heart.
1) Remove the "no-passing" round. The "no-passing" round adds more of an element of luck to the game. You may get stuck with a lone Queen of Spades, which usually doesn't end well! You may also get stuck with a very good set of cards - it's all down to luck. NO WAY
(2) Remove the "shooting the sun" penalty, so it is treated the same as "shooting the moon". DONT YOU DARE
(3) Allow a person to lead hearts if hearts have not been broken, and they are holding only hearts cards and the Queen of Spades. ABSOLUTLY
Keep it the way it is except please remove shooting the sun. That usually ends the game, often too soon. I have no facts to support but I think most hearts games don't have shooting the sun.
PigDaddy3
Thank you for allowing us to offer our opinions. A bigger thanks for running this site.
In regards to change 1, I appreciate that luck can change the game and also have appreciated learning to play more difficult hands in creative ways. However, in a really great close game, bad luck can be a game destroyer. I'm neutral on this.
With option 2, I enjoy having to watch for a sun possibility when a moon attempt is ongoing. However, I'm fine either way with the rule change due to the outsized reward for a bit of luck.
Option 3 is the only change I feel strongly about. Forcing someone to play the lady is such a fun skill and is an elegant moment in a game. Please don't implement this.
Again, many thanks for your efforts in maintaining a fun place to play a great game of hearts!
-Ms. Congeniality/SpeedyHeartzales/Lonely Hearts (Do I get three votes?) ;-)
Just allow the player starting a table to choose the rules they wish to use.
1. Keep the "No pass" round - it's just as likely to punish the lead player as anyone else.
2. Reduce the "Shoot the Sun" penalty to 26
3. Don't change when Hearts can be played. Sure it's bad luck to be forced to play the Queen but part of the skill of Hearts is working your way back from just such an event.
Well OK then, maybe the Sun 52pt rule is a little broke. Fix that but leave 1 and 3 be.
PS: I like playing with Constance. :/
Hi Adrian,
Currently, the player starting a table chooses the rules. That is the way that the site works. There is one exception: ranked games. Players do not "create" a ranked table, and all ranked tables have a fixed set of rules. For example, ranked Hearts disallows the "allow first turn hearts" Option. I think that it is reasonable to enforce one set of rules for ranked games, although others may disagree.
In starting this discussion, I wanted to find out if many (or most) people are unhappy with the way that the default rules are set up for Hearts. I also wanted to find out if the majority would prefer a different set of default rules.
If I were to make any changes, it would always be to add more Options to the current ones. If a majority of players preferred different rules, I might also change the default Options.
If forced to choose default rules I'd say I prefer them as they are.
1. No Pass forces different tactics and balances each round of 4 hands.
2. Shoot the Sun is a valid rule - keep at 52.
3. Keep hearts unbroken.
I'd add a further rule - game continues until there's a clear winner, ie not a draw
Two thumbs up, Marya.
I like the game as is. On another note, I wish we could eliminate noxious players once they reach a predetermined number of X's.
1. Keep the no pass round
2. remove shoot the sun
3. Either way
When are the new games coming like Rummy and Whist
I like all the proposed changes except being able to play a heart before hearts have been broken. Don't change that.
By keeping the rules as they are, skill is emphasized over "luck". We all had to learn sometime, and those with less skill who want the rules changed should just hang in with the standard rules as they are and improve their skill.
Am for all the proposed changes especially the Q-all hearts lead.
It's possible to work your way back from being forced to play the Q or from having a naked Q on a no pass hand, but only if those events do not occur late in the game. Should a purely random event such as those penalize a player who has played skillfully throughout the game until then?
I am pleased that Marya is looking for ways to improve the game and I think the 3 suggested changes here will make the game more competitive.
Minkie
Mary-Lin, do you really think Joe Andrew's tournament rules were imposed because the players at those tournaments were "less skilled"?
If you re-read Marya's article, she states that Joe Andrews told her the 3 proposed changes were to "emphasize skill over luck". Games are always being modified to create greater challenge. Shooting the Moon, leading 2 of clubs, even passing cards are all additions to the so-called standard game. Constance
Hello Marya,
This is DavidMichael. Thank you for the continued improvements to the site. While I am also for removing the 52 point sun rule and could go either way with the leading a heart rule, I have some comments on the no pass hand rule, and furthermore a strong proposal for an additional rule change that is necessary if people are concerned with luck being too much a part of the game.
Firstly, the no pass hand does not necessarily bring that much more luck into the game because one can be dealt no spades and be passed a bare Q resulting in the same predicament. The no pass hand does however add an additional dimension and is played differently. For example the odds of people void in a suit is rarer because such voids are typically more often produced via passing. Nonetheless, the game won't be harmed greatly if it is removed.
Regardless, if the no pass hand is considered to add too much luck to the game then a change to the fact that a high person can run and go back in score should definitely be considered in my opinion. The issue is that knowing that there is little consequence to letting the high man moon if you are in second or third place, the second and third placers typically pass the high person a gifted moon hand to help them and sluff their high hearts on the high person's tricks to ensure their moon is successful. In result the high person's score is not being dropped due to merit. The problem is that rarely can the leader stop the moon without taking the Q. So what occurs at the end of these games is not as much a game of skill, a pretty degenerative random odds game at times.
Consider if the scores are something such as 60, 74, 74, 86. In this situation the leader has earned their lead throughout the game through merit. However, what typically happens is that lead that was earned through merit is discarded because the 2nd and 3rd placers greatly assisted the moon. Now the new score has the previous high person in a tie with first place, but not via skill nor merit.
Similarly, consider the scores are something such as 50, 70, 85, 96. Here again, the person in first place has earned a likelihood that they will win through merit. The high person is about to pass 100 and the second high person is close. Yet again, what typically occurs is that the high person is gifted a run, and now the game has been extended so that the first place person has to maintain that lead for many more hands. In result the game becomes a crap shoot because it ends being that only the last hands end up mattering way too much and luck on those last hand deals is most everything. Whereas the point of the game being to 100 and to award the win to the most meritorious player is to normalize out the luck of the deal.
The fair way has always been to have straight moon rules in which the other players are bumped 26 points on a moon at all times. And yes, there will be times that the low person can take advantage knowing that if some other players run the leader will still win. However, it is fair and just that way because the leader has earned that position to be in via merit.
Best Regards,
- David
If changing the rules improves the game, there is no good reason not to change them, including the small fact that you might have to learn something new.
- drdammit
Eliminating the no pass hand increases the extent to which the game is one of skill, not luck. You think that's a bad thing, but you don't say why.
- drdammit
Hello Marya,
This is DavidMichael again. I did have one comment about the hearts and Q break rule that I believe is valuable for people to consider. If the logic that when a person has only the Q and hearts and the the queen also counts as a heart at that time so that the person may then break hearts by leading any of their hearts including the Q heart is true, then it would be consistent that the Q truly counts as a heart at all times and cannot be led at any time before hearts are broken. I believe the simpler rule is the way it is right now, that the Q does not have full heart status in that it only breaks hearts when sluffed or eaten during a spade trick. However, it can be lead before hearts are broken (for example when someone is trying to run, or when spades are counted and a player knows that only an A or K are left to lead into). I believe that the corner case of someone being left with only hearts to play and the Q is a rare one, and as a previous comment stated a very elegant case that a Q holder has to consider during the play. The way it is doesn't ruin the game nor does it bring luck into it. Regardless, since it is only a rare case, changing it won't ruin the game either. However, why go through all the work and change for something that is somewhat neutral and may not improve the game.
Regarding Joe Andrews, I do not believe we should accept his opinions as law as there are several big tournaments and they each have their own combinations of opinions regarding these rules. For example the THE NEW ENGLAND HEARTS PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION - OFFICIAL TOURNEY RULES state that when a player shoots the moon, the other players' scores are increased 26 points regardless; there is no option to go back in score. I believe that reason supersedes any person's notoriety and it is best to decide what is best based on reason.
Best regards,
- David
If you really think that the no pass hand is that important (I doubt it), I don't think you'd miss the game much one way or the other.
- drdammit
"shooting the sun basically ends the game, haven't yet seen anyone else win when that happens"
I've seen it many times, but I do agree that shooting the sun involves enough luck that eliminating it will increase the extent to which Hearts is a game of skill, a good thing in my book.
"even if it means holding your nose and getting the hand over as quickly as possible to move on to the next hand...)."
I'm for eliminating the need to 'hold our noses' every fourth hand: that players, good and bad, "learn to deal with it" ('tolerate' is more like it) does not mean its a good idea. You think it is but haven't said why.
I agree with Constance. Mary-Lin has it exactly backwards: the no pass hand increases the role of luck and it's silly to argue otherwise.
- drdammit
"Firstly, the no pass hand does not necessarily bring that much more luck into the game because one can be dealt no spades and be passed a bare Q resulting in the same predicament."
The no pass hand removes the strategy involved in deciding which cards to pass and thus certainy does involve less skill, and that you do not choose which cards are passed you, so that, as in your example, you may be passed a naked queen, is also a matter of skill, the skill of your opponent.
You're a good player, David, and it's clear that you enjoy the game. I think you may be surprised how quickly you get used to the idea of passing, and being passed to, every hand, and that you'll grow to like it.
- drdammit
Nice analysis, David, thank you, but here are my thoughts.
If dealt a singleton high Spade in a no-pass hand, one is stuck. If dealt a Spade void in a passing hand, one can void (or reduce) another suit in case a high Spade is then received in the pass. That allows the chance of discarding a received high Spade on an early trick. So those two circumstances are not really all that similar.
Regarding the current second and third place players seemingly colluding to help the high man shoot the Moon to prevent him from going over 100, that's pretty standard strategy. It's part of the fun of the game. The high man just has to continue trying to prove he deserves to win, despite the cleverness of his competitors.
Regarding whether a Moonshot results in +26 points to each opponent or -26 to the shooter, the rule in table games had long been that that was shooter's choice. That's how I learned the game in 1963, and what is described in the Hearts books that Joe Andrews has written since 1984 well before there were any other exclusively Hearts books. Microsoft (MSN) for many years only allowed adding 26 to each opponents score after a Moonshot. They recently changed that to shooter's choice. Elsewhere there are often restrictions on subtraction, as is the case automatically at this site. There is a restriction on subtraction in the live table tournaments run by Joe Andrews, but I don't recall the details. In my circle, the shooter can't subtract, if he will be low man after the new score is calculated. That's also wise advice for a shooter. The general reason for subtraction restrictions is to prevent unnecessary prolongation of the game.
The problem or course with not allowing subtraction under any circumstances is that the shooter may force the high man over 100, and make someone other than himself the immediate winner. In my opinion it shouldn't be that a player must avoid shooting the Moon to prevent this from happening. That seems quite contrary to the spirit (and fun) of the game.
As I already stated further above, I am 100% in agreement with the proposed Hearts rules changes for this website. They were really The Standard before Microsoft (MSN) tried to take over the world.
With the holidays coming, my circle will be playing more live table Hearts games with no regard for a computer programmers favored rules. I hope everyone here has similar opportunities. Happy Thanksgiving!
Good points David. Though, I would say that there is no guarantee that the last place player is going to moon with the collaboration of the the 2nd and 3rd place players. Also, the first place player can anticipate this collaboration, and pass cards, and retain cards through the course of the hand that can thwart this collaboration.
Whitewolf
Leave the rules as they are.
You created a wonderful site and the rules are ok.
Hi David, for me the variable end game is the best part of Hearts. Helping others run, so you can eventually win, is all part of the fun. Without such a dimension it becomes a much shorter game with fewer moving parts to consider. Perhaps it all comes down to how many rules a player feels comfortable with and the average length of game they'd like?
First thank you for operating the site and especially for ranked games. Much appreciated and enjoyed. I have never experienced the Shoot the Sun rule and would abolish it. It is not a skill item and quite random. I am fine if you can lead hearts if you only have the Queen of Spades and hearts. I would keep the no passing hand every fourth turn but don't feel strongly on that last item. Stiller Fan
"The fair way has always been to have straight moon rules in which the other players are bumped 26 points on a moon at all times."
In what sense, exactly, is it fair to automatically add 26 to the other players' scores when that may not only be of less benefit to their position but may actually be harmful to it (as when a player in second or third place moons when another player has, say, 73 points)? Of all the changes to the original rules here, aside from discarding the idea of relative wins (acknowledging 2nd or 3rd place finishes), none has improved play more than the change from such automatic addition.
Moons are an integral part of the game and it should never be the case that the player who moons will have thereby disadvantaged himself or, just as bad, that a player will have disadvantaged himself by helping another player moon (as the best players routinely do when the person trying to moon is not in first place and has at least 27 more points than low). Stopping a moon with the current rule is of benefit only to the person with the lowest score (the only one in whose interest it is to hasten the game’s end), thus allowing for an alliance between the other three in the case of a moon attempt, and that is exactly as it should be. If you think it’s unfair to conspire against low in that way, perhaps you also think it’s unfair to conspire to give them the queen of spades (cough).
What both changes did was to allow for the kind of high strategy, most especially temporary alliances, that make Hearts one of the best card games around (in my not-so-humble opinion), too subtle for novice players as it may be. For those who prefer a simpler game, there are others here at Marya’s… and maybe she’d consider adding Old Maid for those who need another one, especially since it is has much in common with the play of those who think the hallmark of good Hearts play is mere avoidance of the queen. Or, say, Hot Potato.
-drdammit
It is not enough for you that you no longer have to sit at a table with someone who has offended you. You want Marya to punish them? Well, don't hold hold your breath. Anyway, since it takes only a couple of minutes to register, it is only possible to ban a user name, not a player.
Or maybe you mean something more serious by "eliminate" (cough).
To Marya:
An option I would like to see is "-10 JD". I would still normally play "straight" Hearts, but "-10 JD" is Hearts is fun, I think.
Thanks for the best card site on the Web, by the way.
- drdammit
In what sense is Hearts a "pure" game? Most games have undergone, or are still undergoing, evolution. When there is a general consensus that a game is as close to 'perfect' ("pure"?) as possible, there is no reason to change it, but that is clearly not the case with Hearts (witness this very discussion).
I don't believe anyone here wants these rule changes simply because 'Joe Andrews would approve', and that would include Marya. As far as reason goes, I would say that since the proposed changes decrease the role of luck, the burden for argument is on those who think there is some good REASON not to implement them (a preference for luck doesn't qualify). And if there is such an argument, one has to wonder why it has not yet made an appearance here.
- drdammit
By 'heart status', I assume you mean 'point cards' .Playing the Q breaks hearts. It is reasonable that if only point cards remain in your hand, you may play ANY of them, not just the Q. Constance
I agree with Delcai, many (if not most) popular games have gone through some rules evolution. Hearts has changed from its humble beginnings, including adding the Queen of spades as a penalty card. Chess has itself gone through many changes leaving us with the game as we know it. Castling was not always part of the game and the Queen was not the powerhouse it once was. I think most of us would not enjoy many of the games as they originated.
With a no-pass hand its harder to not get the queen. This means that it needs more skill. Period. Players who don't like it are probably not all that skilled in the first place. I think you should leave it. Also keep the rule on when hearts can be played. Everyone has the same chance for itno matter how good of a player they are. As far as shooting the sun I don't think it matters too much since it hardly ever happens so why change it? When people are used to the rules of a game they shouldn't change them just because of a few complainers. And thank you for a really great site, Marya!
Hi mates, pleasant post and pleasant arguments commented at this place, I am
truly enjoying by these.
I like Golfer, even if he is a little cranky sometimes ("oh, yeah, like you're not, dr expletive deleted!")... and he's a great player, in my opinion, even if he does do 'weird' (not!) things like deliberately passing moons, or passing you a spade backer with the queen, or not pass it at all if he doesn't think you're a good player.
But that's just me... a fellow Yahoo Hearts refugee. What do I know...
- drdammit
Yup. And I like the proposed rule changes, Marya, even though I don't really mind the old ones. I might even register. Is the name "alltimebestplayer" taken already?
: )
Joe Andrews has been hosting live table Hearts tournaments around the country since the early seventies and writing Hearts books since the early eighties. This was long before Microsoft (MSN) came along with their programmer’s different notions about the rules.
Joe is a founding member of the American Hearts and Spades Players’ Association. It is their official rules which he promotes and Marya is proposing here. They’re the same rules that I first learned while in college in 1963. Joe and I were both born in 1945.
Link to Joe’s website: http://www.booksbyjoeandrews.com
Joe’s phone number is at the top of his home webpage. He absolutely loves to talk with Hearts players. Give him a call for more insight into what he considers the standard rules, and tips on playing the game. Warning: He’ll talk your ear off, but you'll enjoy it.
Link to Joe’s YouTube videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/expertvillage/search?query=hearts+andrews
Yes, you can silence the offending players, but the lag will still be there. That is what I find to be the most irritating thing about two players slamming each other.
Hi doc,
I am not sure we did understand each other. I am for keeping the holding hand, and not only because of skill/luck, but simply because it is a different hand. Think for example at those boring players that always pass high/dangerous cards - more in general, predictable-passing players. The no-pass hand is an occasion to do something different. That's all.
Regards,
1000 watts
I like the game as it is. The passing round lends a bit of skill to this luck game. The sun shot is very rare and should be rewarded. The Queen of Spades is critical and should not be touched. The players who want more skill are playing spades, not hearts. Hearts is more of a kids game anyway.
I agree with changing rule 2 - eliminating the sun - as it is too large a bonus and overwhelms all other play. I see no reason to eliminate the no pass hand - it adds to the variety and complexity of the game. If it seems unfair because you might get dealt a lone queen, then consider that you can just as easily be passed a queen - or ace of king of spades - without adequate protection. As for possible rule change #3, I have mixed feelings. I can see the problem in being forced to lead the queen, but many times I have seen players intentionally not break hearts, forcing play, and element of strategy.
BUT THE ONE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO IMPROVE PLAY IS TO DISCOURAGE THE QUITTERS - ESPECIALLY THE SELF-INDULGENT BRATS WHO LEAVE WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR FIRST QUEEN OR THEIR MOON ATTEMPT IS BUSTED - BUT ALSO THOSE THAT JUST LEAVE WHEN WAY BEHIND OR THOSE WHO START A GAME KNOWING THEY MAY BE INTERRUPTED OR HAVE NOT TIME TO FINISH IN ANY CASE. CAN'T THEY BE PENALIZED BY FREEZING THEM OUT OR HAVING SOME OTHER PENALTY IMPOSED. While the site generally gets better as more players join and the number on at one time increases, overall playability is going down as the number of quitters seems to increase.
Hi Marya,
tx for running the site first of all, I really appreciate it. As many comments pointed out, the 52 points given for "pure" luck is something I won't miss it! The no passing hand is not too bad, the rest it could be fine for me.
Actually, David, Joe Andrews is the "notorious" person who founded the New England Heart's Players' Association. He later transformed it into the American Hearts and Spades Player's Association with the rules in his book "Win at Hearts" and being proposed here. The allowance for the subtraction of 26 points is to prevent someone from being reluctant to Shoot the Moon due to another player being made the immediate winner. While Joe's book rules and the AHSPA allow a shooter complete freedom to choose whether to add or subtract, their tournament rules place a conditional restriction on subtraction to prevent unnecessary prolongation of the game.
Regarding the rule about breaking hearts, it must be understood why it was invented. It was to prevent people from leading hearts on an early trick to stop someone without hearts from Shooting the Moon. Otherwise Moonshots would be exceedingly difficult and rare, and folks would be reluctant to set themselves up for one. The situation of having all point cards and being forced to lead the Spade Queen occurs late in the deal and has nothing to do with the aforementioned concern.
As stated earlier, I am completely for all three proposed rules. Especially the first one. Passing is an integral part of game strategy. Not doing so virtually assures who will take the Spade Queen and makes Moonshots unlikely. As you note the other two rules involve relatively rare situations, nevertheless I support them.
Hearts has very simple rules, making it an easy game for kids to learn. However, played at its best, it is a very complex game. Players must pass cards strategically to strengthen their hand, cover their pass, or to help another player; they must know when to prevent a moon and when to allow one; they must be able to strategically aim the Queen to low-man, often working with the other players in the set-up; they must always be aware of the score in decision-making; they must be able keep track of cards especially if they are trying to moon themselves; they must be able to switch alliances depending on who is the low-man; as low-man, they must know how to protect their position by evasion and how to end the game as quickly as possible; they must know how to protect high-man and at the same time, target low; they must be aware as to who has the Queen by the way other players lead cards. There are so many strategies that I'm sure I left some out. The point is that the nuances change continuously as the game progresses. Doing a bit of research on Hearts will get you out of the notion of the simplicity of the game - that it is not just an evasive game in which you simply take no heart tricks and dump the queen as soon as possible, regardless of the consequence to the entire game. Constance
Hearts is easier to learn than Spades, but much more difficult to master. Both are played by children and adults alike.
Actually, the no pass hand is an occasion to do something LESS, not merely different. A better way to avoid poor play is to avoid poor players, something you can easily do by simply clicking the 'x' next to their names (take them off your dislike list after a few months, perhaps, and see if they haven’t improved sufficiently, that they now routinely pass hearts when passing a moon is inappropriate, for example).
Disallowing passing prevents not only poor play, but good play as well. I am against it.
"Hearts is more of a kids game anyway", he said.
Great, now our Hearts blog has an anonymous troll.
- paradigm7
Hello Marya ,
current rules are satisfying enough (maybe the bonus for a sun can go to 39 points ? - rarely happens but it isn't fare to count as a moon right ? )
the real point here is to give some useful advises (and help improving their play) to some ''players'' :
1) don't try to moon in every single hand
2) always cover your passes and don't wait from others to do it for you when the crucial moment comes
3) be polite during the game (we are not playing for money here)
4) play fair when the game approaches to its end and you are out from the 1st place...
-zoo
Hi Marya, thank you very much for making World of Card Games for all of us.
My personal opinion about changing the rules of Hearts is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you want to introduce changes, you can put them as optional settings, like the one for allowing hearts in the first trick. That way the "alternative" rules would be available to people who want them, or to anyone who wants to play a variant of the game out of curiosity. But the game is what it is. Please please please don't ruin it.
If you want to spend some more time making improvements for the community, could I please very humbly ask that you give us Canasta? Canasta is such a well suited game to the community that we have at WoCG, and it would be amazing to be able to play it!
Thanks very much once again!
I am strongly in favor of the proposed rule change.
Thanks Curt
agree with the no-draw idea
Get rid of the shooting the sun, please.
When are you going to make a decision about the proposed changes, the suspense is killing me!
Sorry but I have not had time to put any work into the site recently; I have a lot of other things going on right now. I hope to figure out what to do after Thanksgiving.
Hi Marya,
First I'll echo a bunch of the other messages by saying love your site, really appreciate you letting us come to your place and throw cards. :) I played cards all through school and well into adult life but lost my regular group years ago and just never made the effort to find a regular game. I forgot how much I enjoy it! And your browser based site seems to have more features/games/players than pay versions. Well done.
If the rule vote is still going, here's my ballot:
1. Keep the hold hand.
2. Lose the 52 point sun
3. Could go either way on this one, but will vote to keep the hearts-must-break-before-dropping-theQ rule. Just got hit with this one not an hour ago. It was very entertaining to try to get people to break hearts but I failed and ended up with 24 points for my trouble. Sucked for me but it was still fun. In a way that's similar to keeping the hold hand. It forces you to think, react and play differently and I like that.
Thanks again for your hard work!
ElectricZ
Someone proposed to introduce the -10 points for the jack of diamonds. I think it would be funny. Someone else proposed to keep the specialty of shoot the Sun, but with reduced score, for example 39. It makes sense. And you, Marya, did it right by remembering that these variations would be *options* anyway - I think many of us took these variations too heavily, perhaps forgetting that they would be options.
Thanks again for your work, cheers,
1000 Watts
Sorry I didn't reply earlier! If a Guest's name appears in yellow, it means that they are "inexperienced" - i.e. new to the site. If a Guest's name appears in white, it means that they are more experienced at the site and have played there for over 10 games.
Please, please, please get rid of shooting the sun.
Could you have the Jack Of Diamonds option for -10 points and the take no tricks option for -5 points. I have also seen the option of choosing between a hundred point game and a fifty point game.
Heart is a kids game like Go (Gho) is. Easy to learn, but hard to master (OK, Go is a little harder to master than hearts but you get the idea)
My 2 cents ... I vote to keep the game as you already have it. After playing cards on multiple sites over the years, I have finally found the best one. Don't mess w/ perfection.
Actually I prefer to bluff. It is almost the same with hearts but you can pass cards as many as you want.
Post a Comment