Win at Hearts

Author: Joseph D. Andrews   Publisher: Bonus Books   Pages: 126   Price: $12.95   ISBN: 1566251109



About a decade ago I worked for a guy who had been a logger for 20+ years, a grizzled old coot who had a thousand stories, some possibly true, many obviously fictionalized. One of his favorites was about a time when he first met one of his daughter's boyfriends. The story went like this:

So this kid asks if my daughter and I wanna play Hearts. I got the feeling that he was pretty familiar with the game and was planning on impressing us with his card-playing abilities. So he asks if I know how to play, and I say that I've played a few times but I don't really remember how the game works. Anyhow, the kid deals out the cards and runs over the rules, and we play the first round and take all the bad cards. And I say "Boy, I guess I'm really bad at this," and he says "No, actually that's the best thing you can do. It's called Shooting the Moon." So we play a few more rounds and I don't take any points, and then I Shoot the Moon again. And the kid says "you really don't know how to play Hearts?" And I look the kid straight in the eye and say "son, I was beating people at Hearts back when you were a twinkle in your mother's eye."
Okay, so it's a good story, but I wondered as to its veracity. Not that doubted for a moment that this guy would pull such a trick on some poor suitor. But Hearts (thought I) is such a game of luck that even if my Boss was an expert player it's unlikely he could trounce this kid so thoroughly hand after hand. I mean, maybe if he got dealt the right cards, but that struck me as just too much of a coincidence.

At the time, I wasn't much of a game aficionado, and I certainly didn't realize that public domain games such as Hearts and Checkers could be played very skillfully indeed. And while I still doubt that the story unfolded exactly as told, I now appreciate that a expert Hearts player could very well pull off this kind of coup on unsuspecting novices. In fact, my desire to do just that is what prompted me to buy "Win at Hearts" by Joseph D. Andrews. I wanted to learn some of the tricks of the trades, so that next time I could be the one who first feigns unfamiliarity in the game and then goes on to clean the clocks of everyone at the table.

The book is only 100 pages long (plus another 20 pages of appendices), but there's a lot of information and strategy in this slender volume. After a brief history and a overview of the essential rules, Andrews plunges right in to the finer points of the game. First up are the strategies of The Pass, i.e. what three cards you should pawn off on your neighbor before each hand begins. There is no one-size-fits-all maxim for this, such as "always pass your highest hearts"; instead, the author explores a variety of different situations and gives tips for each. One point he makes here (and throughout the book) is that a savvy player will always be thinking long-term, so while passing all of your hearts might seem logical, saving at least one may stymie someone else's Moonshot attempt down the line. Thinking about the last trick of the hand -- even before the first trick has begun -- is a perfect example of what sets the Hearts experts apart from the casual players.

The next three chapters are devoted to "Spade-suit Management" (to ensure that you don't get stuck with Black Maria), planning an overall play strategy and how to play defensively. His advice on playing the spade suit really opened my eyes as to this simple fact: the Queen of Hearts is truly the single biggest factor of the game. Now I realized this to some extent, of course, and always make an effort not to acquire it during the course of play, but Andrews points out that avoiding the Queen must be more than just another objective while playing, if often must be the objective you strive for. Given a lousy hand, I would typically just play as best I could, hope to take as few hearts as possible and pray that I wouldn't get stuck with the Queen. But as Andrew points out, in many circumstances it's best to actively pursue hearts if, as a result, it means you can duck the Queen of Spades. These chapters taught me that trying to avoid taking any points ever is a often a recipe for disaster -- it's better to resign yourself to taking some, and plan how to take the fewest possible.

I found the following chapter the most interesting of all: the Psychology of Hearts. He provides plenty of examples showing players using assorted feigns and Jedi mindtricks to dupe their opponents into taking much more points that they ever wanted. A clever ploy, if you find yourself in possession of a wretched hand almost certain to take the Queen of Spades, is to confidentally slap down some high cards early, snap up a few hearts and pretend like you're attempting to Shoot the Moon. If the person holding the Queen hangs on to it (afraid that giving it to you will ensure your victory) you can then abruptly switch tactics after you've rid yourself of your worst cards. Of course the other important psychological element is figuring out when other players are trying to pull just such a sham, and gleefully tripping them up.

The final portion of the book talks about some common Hearts variation, such as partnership play or using the Jack of Diamond rules. These are illustrated mostly with examples, and very little in the way of in-depth strategy is given except to point out exceptionally clever plays in the case studies.

It is unclear who this book is aimed at, exactly: beginning, intermediate or advanced players. The inclusion of the rules at the start of the book would imply that even beginners can get a lot from this book -- and, indeed, I found the first few chapters very enlightening -- but Andrews often lapses into rarefied jargon when explaining plays. I also found it difficult to follow many of his examples, as he seems to assume that readers are familiar and comfortable following play-by-play case studies. Another pet peeve of mine was Andrew's overuse of florid language when describing some of the examples. A given deal isn't "interesting", it's "extraordinary, unbelievable, and fantastic". A certain players isn't trying to Shoot the Moon, he "has moondust in his eyes." More annoying (to me) was Andrew's rhetorical device of ascribing thoughts, emotions and utterances to the players in his examples. Often, in his case studies, a player who is trying to shoot the moon is described taunting his opponents, crying "God, I'm good!" and "chortling" as he plays his cards. Then, when someone undermines the plan with a clever play, the arrogant player dissolves into "shock and disbelief". Yes, assigning hubris to the player who eventually gets tripped up does make for a better story, but if I want tragedy I'll read "Macbeth". Here I would have preferred the examples without so much embroidery.

"Win at Hearts" did improve my game, no doubt about that. As this is the only book on Hearts I have ever read I cannot accurately compare it to others in the field, but comparing it to strategy books and articles in general I'd call it about average. Still, I'm glad I have it, and I'll probably refer to it often. Because someday, when I'm a grizzled old coot, I want to look someone in the eye and say "I was beating people at Hearts back when you were a twinkle in your mother's eye."