Talk:Hearts (card game)

Joker variant

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

Hmmmm. Wait, let me see if I am getting this right. You are adding only one Joker to a 52 card deck, and there are four players, right? Does the Dealer then start the deal by laying out one card, face down, for use as a kitty? If that's the case, I can see all kinds of variants with that sort of thing. For instance, the winner of the first trick might take the kitty, and add it to his hand, and that would probably turn out fairly advantageous, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.20 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

External links to shareware

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

Shouldn't there be more links to external software, rather than fewer? Whether proprietary or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.23 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving hearts as a suit to hearts_(suit)

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

I like this idea, I think it would make it much clearer what each page was discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordwow (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 December 2004 (UTC)

PirateMonkey I agree. I think someone should do it. --July 6th, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateMonkey (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Improbable Scenario

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

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

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

Scoring Variant 50/100

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

Yes, I think I have seen that version played that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.20 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Michigan Hearts

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)

Cheating section

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

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

do it! 207.144.249.100 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hearts Specific Terms

"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)

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)

Diamond symbol

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

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

Chinese hearts variant and Ten of clubs scoring variant

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

Bitch

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

A search online reveals few sites stating such names , but no real source, a search is sort of hard most of the results give porn sites.13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbamb (talk • contribs)

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

In Australia, it is always Black Bitch (referring to the Queen of Spades), and the name "Hearts" is almost unknown. 121.44.192.110 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've spent almost all of my life in and around the LA area in California. I've also spent several years in the USN, and played a fair amount of Hearts with other sailors. It's not uncommon to hear people refer to the Queen of Hearts as "the bitch," but I've never heard of the game itself being referred to as the bitch.JDZeff (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

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

Variants

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

Strategy section

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

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

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

Traditional ?

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

Improving the article

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)

Championships and tournaments

Does anybody know if there are Hearts leagues in the United States, or elsewhere in the world? Do any of these leagues have championship tournaments, and can acclaim the winners as champions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.27 (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

History/Evolution 0f the Game Missing From Article

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

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

Large-scale rewrite

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

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

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

Queens

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting the sun

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

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)

Re-write

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation 12 link no longer applicable, leads to a domain with banking links only.2001:8003:1019:D000:504:89C1:4D2B:2DD6 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Correct object of the game

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

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

What is a "run"?

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)

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)

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)

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)

What if entire hand is penalty cards?

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)

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)

Primary topic

I moved this page to Hearts (card game). This page should only be at Hearts if it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is not however primary topic. Traffic stats show 29291 hits for Heart of Midlothian F.C. (almost always referred to as "Hearts") but only 18576 for this one. Not only is it clearly not significantly 'more primary' than all other topics combined, it is not even the leading topic of the name. The heart, human heart, the the symbol, the card suite, as well as the sports club, are all seemingly 'more primary' than this card game. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Counting page hits is at best only one measure of a primary topic and counting page hits in the manner you describe is entirely misleading in that it is comparing apples and oranges. I've never heard of Heart of Midlothian F.C., but that is beside the point. Comparing page hits for a uniquely titled article with "Hearts" based on anecdotal claim that the unique title is known as Hearts will give misleading results. I suggest this should be sorted out with a properly framed move discussion. older ≠ wiser 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pages like this are only for clear primary topics; there's no need to waste time with WP:RM requests for such an obvious compliance with policy. If you just google "Hearts" ... at least here in the UK, the only thing that will come up for the first few pages is the football club. I'd be willing to bet at least a third of the 18576 above were actually looking for the sports team. You've been surpisingly dismissive of the Traffic Stats evidence, which is quite strong in this case; do you have any measure at all of showing any likelihood that the card game is even the leading topic? I'm curious about what has led you to believe it is, especially if you've never heard of the football team? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere -- check, nearly all of the links are for the card game, and many more went directly to Hearts instead of Hearts (card game) until you changed them.
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics -- tossup mostly because Heart of Midlothian F.C. is uniquely titled and at present there is simply no way of knowing how many hits going to Hearts might have been looking for the FC.
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches (NOTE: adding &pws=0 to the google search string eliminates personal search bias, including geographical bias) -- Google web search give 6 items of first page related to the game and two for the FC -- there is apparently a regional bias in the results. Google Books and Google Scholar both give no support to either topic.

Until your edit today, there was no link in the hatnote on Hearts to the FC, so presumably, people looking for the FC either used the disambiguation page (or used a different search term or gave up). Hearts was viewed 18576 times in January. Hearts (disambiguation) was viewed 15 times in January. The low traffic figures for the disambiguation page don't support indication that the card game is not the primary (i.e., there is no indication that the disambiguation page should be moved because so many readers are looking for something other than the card game). older ≠ wiser 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First point. I ran through the incoming links today, and there were a few going to the sports team. Obviously most were going to the card game, as until I moved today that was the name of the article!!! Second point, yes, uniquely titled ... but WP:COMMONNAME is Hearts. Two articles with the same common name, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not suggest we give the space to the less common. Remember, what you need to show is that the game is primary topic, not that the football team is not (and I am not saying it is). If you are a reasonable person, you already know there is no primary topic for this space (google and traffics stats may lie a bit, but not THAT much). Given that, what is your objection to applying policy here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That the vast majority are for the card game is one indication of being a primary topic. Yes, the card game is named according to common name. It is unclear how commonly the FC is known as "Hearts" outside the UK. It might well be that there is no primary topic, but I do not think it is nearly so obvious as you. I most emphatically do not find your arguments to be soundly based in policy. To most anyone in the U.S., "hearts" (plural) is a card game. Whether it is the primary topic or not would be the point of having a properly formed move discussion and gather opinion and evidence beyond limited individual experience. older ≠ wiser 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This post surprises me a bit, because in fact you have been the one citing your own individual experience (e.g. I've never heard of Heart of Midlothian F.C.). This is ok, but you need to cite evidence, like the evidence I have cited. So most Americans have never heard of the sports team. Well, guess what, Americans are only part of Wikipedia's readership. You also I think need to pause and rethink that argument about the links too. They were pointing to the card game because that was the title of the article; fewer were pointing to the sports team because people have been dabbing it for years, either because they know the article's wikipedia title or because someone else did. I find it hard to understand your objections in the context of any policy. Please re-read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and show me, out of respect for this policy, at least a tiny bit of evidence of some kind that the card game is primary topic:

Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if uses of more than one ambiguous term are linked in combination on one page).

I am merely saying that there is not primary topic for this, and I have proven the case I think. There's really little more I can do. Moving this page back will be a clear implementation of policy. Why shouldn't we? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You have proven nothing. You have provided some evidence which might suggest that there is not a primary topic. I have already cited evidence. Please read carefully. 1) Vast majority of links to the topic are for the card game. 2) Traffic statistics for Hearts (disambiguation) strongly suggest that the current arrangement of pages is not causing any significant inconvenience to readers and that the primary topic is correctly placed. If you think the card game is not primary, then propose a move and let broader consensus develop. older ≠ wiser 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're just discrediting your own judgment on this. 1) WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ... doesn't matter for the reasons already stated. 2) The first wiki page to come up on google is the sports team (in the uk anyway); what does the traffic really indicate? I ask again, please at least provide a tiny bit of evidence of some kind that the card game is primary topic ... a tiny bit, that's all I ask. This is what you must show. Wikipedia is not a game, and neither is WP:RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right back at you -- that you don't like the reasons given does not make them invalid. I've also explained how your use of traffic statistics is mistaken. The topic has been relatively stable for some time now and the traffic stats to the disambiguation page do not give any indication that the primary topic is improperly placed. All I'm suggesting is that a broader consensus is needed to determine that the primary topic is actually not the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I#ve heard all this. But what I've not heard is the basis for believing that there is any primary topic here, and that if there is, it is the card game. WP:RM are not ideal as they are often more about clique size and cultural bias group size than discussion, esp. as now I suspect there will be a core of US users baffled that there even is a soccer team called Hearts who'll end up blocking the super-majority looked for by so many admins (but, to make it clear, Hearts is to the city of Edinburgh what the Detroit Lions are for Detroit). I'd rather solve it here through debate with reasonable users... . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, discussion and consensus is precisely how Wikipedia works. And I think it is reasonably good. Sometimes consensus goes your way and sometimes it doesn't. Life goes on. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true in practice, but that's the ideal, yes. Process is not however a substitute for discussion. It is discussion that brings about consensus ... opting for process as a substitute for discussion is precisely why our ideal process is broken. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Decisions made hastily and with limited participation are likely to be revisited at a later time. Processes exist to support decision-making on Wikipedia. It might not be perfect, but ignoring established processes puts one at risk of being on the wrong side of consensus. While you clearly think the correctness of your reasoning is self-evident, I'm suggesting that maybe getting some other perspectives on the matter is a good thing. older ≠ wiser 22:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. There is some confusion here. I thought you were talking about WP:RM process. Yes, I agree, and already left messages to attract more comments at the DAB and Hearts talk pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a start, but WP:RM is the appropriate forum for discussion of page moves. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) Failing to agree with you does not make Bkonrad unreasonable. We do have to use the existing mechanisms to determine if there is consensus to change primary topics (or change to no primary topic). If you think that the existing mechanisms won't result in the conclusion you'd like, you may be right, but they are still the mechanisms. If they are flawed, they'd need to be changed first. I do note that Lions does not go to the U.S. football team either.

• Bkonrad's right about the traffic stats, which do indicate that the current primary topic (the card game) is the right one.
• Incoming links. Favor the card game, but that just means they can be ignored.
• Google web hits. Please remember to add "&pws=0" to the end of the URL of your hits and re-run your search. That will instruct Google to ignore geographic and other biases. The card game comes out ahead on the first page of hits.
• Google news hits. No discernible primary topic on the first page of hits
• Google book hits. Lots of books with "Hearts" in the title. If you go to advanced and put "-hearts" in the title section, no discernible primary topic.
• Google scholar. The body organ would seem to be primary there.

So, based on traffic, links, and unbiased web hits, I would expect the card game to remain at the base name. The new hatnote at the top of Hearts leading to the FC would seem to be the best solution, since FC seekers land one click away from the sought article, just as they would if the disambiguation page were moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unconvincing, JHunter, and you are doing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT too. Why do incoming links matter if people are dabbing them? I myself got rid of all the links pointing from the soccer team the afternoon. The traffic stats show the football team is primary if primary is going to be decided on the slight numerical advantages you are claiming to draw from google first page hits; but if primary topic is decided the way the guideline page says, there is no primary topic. Incidentally, disagreeing with me doesn't make anyone unreasonable. Ignoring reasonable arguments does. So far, on the combined 'evidence' of yourself and Bkonrad, Hearts is primary topic because 1) it has a slight advantage on first page google hits and 2) Americans have never heard of the football club. Anyone else convinced of this? Regarding 1), this appears to be false. I reran the search per your instructions, and only two articles on the first page of the google search are not about the football club: this article and some wedding site. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't directly compare the raw traffic for Heart of Midlothian F.C. with Hearts (the card game). If the article for FC were titled something like Hearts (football club), then a direct comparison would be more meaningful. As it is, the stats only show that the football team is a more popular topic than the card game. It establishes nothing about how many people look for the football team under the name "Hearts". older ≠ wiser 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a happenstance matter of disambiguatory convenience that soccer clubs are routinely given their official long FC titles instead of their common name, but that doesn't change the fact that the common name for the clubs is just "Hearts" not Heart of Midlothian FC (hence, say, FC Bayern Munich or Real Madrid C.F.). Definitely not a reason the raw traffic can't be compared. Now, no, it doesn't establish how many people find it under Hearts, but are you going to contest my claim that Hearts is the team's common name? Nor would this leave the card game as the primary topic anyway. That's still to be argued for. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Happenstance or not, it does mean that direct comparisons of traffic are invalid for establishing primary topic. Regardless of whether the team might also be known as Hearts, the title of the article is distinct and cannot be used in direct comparisons. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, Deacon of Pndapetzi. I am unconvinced by your arguments, for the reasons given. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@ JHunter, thanks for your 'contribution'. @Bkonrad, these are just assertions. There is no reason to exclude direct comparisons based on anything you've said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzi, no, no, thank you for your 'contribution' and assertions, but the reasons Bkonrad gave are reasons the direct comparisons aren't measurements of the readership usage of "Hearts" as a title term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

By any objective measure on Google the card game is more widespread than the football team (especially as a single word). hearts cards, 49 million, 35 million. The football team doesn't even make the first page of Google for a "hearts" search while the top five results are all about the card game. So, if there is no disambig page, the card game is obviously the correct choice. However making this page a disambig page and moving the current article to Hearts (card game) is a better choice as there are multiple meanings, including the things that beat in our chests, and the card suit... both of which are far more common than either the card game or the football game. 2005 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try a non-geographical search. In my google searchs only the football team makes the first page, save this page and one other page. Otherwise it seems you agree that there is no primary topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are getting UK results. Those do favor the football team. .com results favor the card game. In terms of volume, the card game versus the football team has physically more results. But in terms of primary topic, songs like "Hearts on Fire" and movies like "Lonely Hearts" are not talking about either the game or the team; and the playing card suit is what is written and talked about more than the other two combined because it is an aspect of bridge, poker, solitaire and every standard deck card game. So yes, I think there is no topic that calls out for it to be the primary topic. 2005 (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the non-geo searches favour the football team too; maybe US based searches are less favorable to the card game though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide your link to your non-geo search. It appears that the &pws=0 search is not removing the geographic bias (from any region), but just the personalized search bias (whether on .com or .co.uk) Google Anguilla[1], Australia[2], Canada[3], Cook Islands[4], Ireland[5], New Zealand[6], and Solomon Islands[7] all favor the card game. The FC comes closest in Ireland (second hit), but that's it. India[8] favors pictures of hearts first, then the card game, then the FC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the card game Hearts (which in my youth we called Dirty Lady, or worse) is on the menu on the majority of the world's computers, I think it's a fair bet that it's the topic most people will be looking for under that name. I would mention the football club explicitly in the hatnote; that's just as good as a dab page for people who may be looking for it. --Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence? The evidence so far suggests very strongly that it's not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidences so far suggests that it is. Consensus is recognizing that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not consist of you and your long-term friend Bkonrad. And what evidence? Stacking up friends is as good as saying nothing if no good evidence is presented. No evidence presented even remotely indicates that the card game is primary topic. Saying an untruth over and over again does not turn it into a truth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is certainly not you alone. Bkonrad and I are long-term dabbers, but otherwise unacquainted. But, hey, there's always WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is surreal. Unless I have missed something, Deacon of Pndapetzim seems to be the only Wikipedian so far who believes that the game is not the main topic and the article should be moved. As one of the large number of people who have never heard of that football club but are very familiar with the game, I can certainly see why. (I note that I lived in the UK for a number of years and never even visited the US.) Certainly it's not too much to ask that DoP start a proper RM process instead of trying to win the debate with rhetorics and insistence that a criterion that is not considered decisive in general is so for this article, and that his way of evaluating it is more precise than those of the other editors involved in the discussion. Hans Adler 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed the part where 2005 agreed with me. But can we cut the rather undignified dog-piling demographics bull? This comes down to evidence and it doesn't matter how many people, friends of each other or not, show up ignoring the evidence and declaring their ignorance an excuse to ignore dab guidelines. Your ignorance does not constitute evidence. Check the evidence above, traffic stats, google hits, and so on; it shows there is no primary topic by every reasonable measurement available, and no reasonable measurement suggests the card game is anywhere near being primary topic. The heart is the primary topic if anything, followed by the human heart; the card game comes eventually somewhere down the line, but only after the sports team. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since you don't find the extraordinary lack of traffic to the disambiguation page to be compelling evidence that the primary topic is correctly placed, let's take a closer look at Google results. hearts +card -football gives 44,000,000 on Google.com and 44,300,000 on Google.co.uk. hearts +football -card gives 21,500,000 on Google.com and 21,600,000 on google.co.uk. Roughly twice as many in both regions. Now those are still likely to include many false positives. To more narrowly focus on the game (in which the Queen of Spades plays a crucial role) rather than pages that merely mention playing cards hearts +card -football +queen gives 6,920,000 on google.com and 6,930,000 on google.co.uk. Similarly, to focus more narrowly on the Midlothian football club hearts +football -card +Midlothian gives 284,000 on google.com and 283,000 on google.co.uk. Even limiting the search to simply hearts +Midlothian gives only 1,700,000 on both google.com and google.co.uk. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does argument even come into it? I thought the position was that the matter came down merely to number of opinion-holding user accounts who happened to contribute here? ;) Anyway, accepting all the assumptions in your post, it doesn't even then establish that the card game is primary topic. But more pointedly, the vast majority of the links in card searches are about the suite (as can easily be verified), not the card game. By contrast only two of the pages displayed on p. 1 of a google search (uk or international according to your instructions) show anything but the soccer club. The claims for the card game being primary topic are fantastical even by your own evidence; remember, the soccer club is not the only comparison. It is merely one of many instances of a topic more "primary" than card game. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your lead-in joke: you neither listened to the arguments presented nor have consensus. Adding a smiley face to a snarky attempt to deflect that isn't useful. If there were a "Wikipedia UK", the FC might be primary for hearts there. Nowhere else, including the current English-language Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the arguments made. No-one so far as I am aware is claiming the fc to be primary usage. Stick to the relevant issues please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are asking for a rename that is clearly controversial, since a lot of editors disagree. (I won't go so far as to say I disagree myself. But I am not at all convinced yet that the game is not the primary topic, and convincing me would require a constructive discussion which you are apparently trying to prevent.) Since move wars are such a bad thing, controversial or potentially controversial moves always require going through RM. The editors who have the present article on their watchlists are of course more likely to be interested in the game than the general editor community. With RM we will get a wider community, so that's actually in your interested. Obviously it's not the job of those who are happy with the status quo to go to WP:RM. It's yours, if you are serious about wanting to rename the article, as opposed to just being interested in a fight or something. Hans Adler 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not trying to prevent a constructive discussion. Per WP:AGF and your own claim to desire constructive discussion, I hope you'll retract that as well as the suggestion that I am looking for a fight. Regarding RM, I am one of the most active closers of RMs. I am fully aware of the process. You are mistaken in believing it will encourage 'constructive' discussion however as most wikipedians regard it as a vote. You do happen to be right that the discussion here isn't working with the current contributors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken in believing that you can form a new consensus without using WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do live in the UK and I would like to make the following points:

• The football team is commonly referred to as Hearts F.C.

look at the google autocomplete "hearts fc". While typing might take longer so it is typed as just hearts and the link comes up under hearts doesn't make it primary.

• The web domain for the club is www.heartsfc.com.
• Hearts the card game does come up on the first page of google.co.uk because of wikipedia

if it does not appear on you searches it means that you need to clear you cache google tailors searches for the user.

• Anyone who knows of the football team will know of the card game and should not be surprised when they find the result. This is not true in reverse.
• The hits you mention will include bot traffic because information on the card game changes less often there will be more bots on the commercial football club this does not make it more notable
• hearts as a card game is in the dictionary as a word the football team is not.

I would state that the card game is more notable than the football club and to suggest that it should be replaced by hearts fc because of random google stats is ridiculous. Tetron76 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is already a disambiguation at the top of the page there is no justification for turning the page into a redirect.

Much larger football teams don't have what this person wants :

*Spurs

*Liverpool

*City

Most critically there would not be an article under the name of Hearts on the football team just

a redirect clearly this is inappropriate as hearts has high notability.

To want more than the link already present is clearly wrong and is only a fan trying to add disproportionate notability to his favourite club. 90.205.111.109 (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To chime in, it is absolute rubbish to claim that the card game is not the PRIMARYTOPIC. It is the primary topic. I also had never heard of the football club. And, the proper way to make a move proposal, is to make a wp:RM proposal. It is nonsense to assert that a move of the card game article is "obvious" and not needing consensus by a proper move proposal. And, I predict that a proper move proposal in this case will be overwhelming settled in favor of "do not move". Drop this nonsense! --doncram 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft

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)

Moon scoring part unclear

"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)

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)

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

N.B. This discussion is now closed. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheating (fr.wikipedia.org)

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)

we should change the image

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)

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)

That's now done. Bermicourt (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. —Soap— 23:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As a passing comment, the ace should be shown as the highest heart since, at least in Hearts, it ordinary is. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That is true - good point. Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect rules

The "modern rules (2011)" section does not mention that taking all hearts and the Queen scores you 0 instead of 26 (and other players score 26). However the "strategy" section mentions "players should decide whether to try and pass off their hearts to their opponents or attempt to capture them all" which makes no sense because of that omission in the rules.

Other common rules that are missing: no leading with hearts until one or the QoS has been discarded, and no discarding hearts on the first trick (I don't own Chambers Card Games from Peter Arnold so I can't tell if it's in there).

--Remram44 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The rules are correct. There are only 13 penalty cards and 13 penalty points in Hearts; the ♠Q has no part to play. You are thinking of Black Lady which is often, confusingly, called Hearts and in which ♠Q, or Black Lady, is an additional and highly significant penalty card. A hatnote at the top of the article points this out as does the lede.

You are right that the first sentence of the strategy section doesn't match, so I have removed it. Thank you for spotting that.

Peter Arnold has done his research and been careful to distinguish the original game of Hearts, a good game in its own right, from the variant of Black Lady which came later and has overtaken it in popularity in the US. Take a look at Black Lady and you'll probably see the rules you're looking for. Black Maria, the British variant with two more penalty cards, is also worth trying. Bermicourt (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The rules are now consistent, thanks for that. They differ with the rules everyone I know is using and every website around the web lists, but apparently that's on purpose to match this 34-year-old book... At least I am glad to learn there was a time when the content of the article actually matched usage. --Remram44 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The rules are based on Arnold (2011) - that's not 34 years old. If you look at Black Lady you'll probably find what you're looking for. According to American authors Glenn and Denton, the rules there are "nearly universal in the United States." The problem is that the name Hearts has been slapped onto Black Lady by writers too sloppy to check their facts. There was even a vogue for calling it Black Lady Hearts which arose from poor typesetting in a book that was misread by later authors. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Metaphorical uses

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)

"Capture" description

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)

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)

@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)