odds of having a particular suit in the cat in Hearts

Cardplayer

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
1
When I play the game Hearts with my parents, we are each dealt 17 cards with one remaining card put into the "cat". The person who takes the first trick gets to look at this card, but nobody else. The specific rules to the game aren't important, other than that each player has to follow whatever suit is led.

Now before any of us look at our cards, there is clearly a 1 in 4 chance of the card being any particular suit. But once we've each looked at our cards and begun to play the odds change. Two of the players usually can't be certain until the very end of the hand what that specific card is. My problem is that I've really confused myself about how to these odds change as the hand plays out.

Lets say you're dealt 4 clubs, 4 hearts, 4 spades, and 5 diamonds. At this point there are 35 unknown cards, so the probability of it being a club, for instance, are 9/35 = 0.257. Now you start playing the game and lead a club (you don't get to look in the "cat"). The other players follow suit and these 3 clubs are removed from play. There are 33 unknown cards now, but only 7 of which are clubs, so the probability has dropped down to 7/33 = 0.212. Someone else lead clubs two more times and its dropped to 3/29=0.103. If you lead your last club and they both follow suit it appears there is only a 1/27=0.037 chance of a club being in the "cat", but it still feels like it should be closer to 1 in 4.

My reasoning is as follows; if I randomly deal one card face down on a table from a full deck and then ask you to remove twelve clubs from the deck, I am extremely confident that one out of four times the card on the table will be a club. Removing those other cards afterwards did nothing to affect the odds. I could have you remove all 51 cards, and it still wouldn't affect it.

As I write this I can see that in the example where I got 0.037 I've actually calculated the probability of any specific card in my opponents hand or the cat being the missing club, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around what I've done wrong here. Leading clubs four times or leading diamonds four times and having the opponents follow suit isn't that rare so it just can't be the fact that it reduces the odds of a card being in the deck so drastically. I feel like it will be a DOH! moment when someone points it out. Thanks.
 
When I play the game Hearts with my parents, we are each dealt 17 cards with one remaining card put into the "cat". The person who takes the first trick gets to look at this card, but nobody else. The specific rules to the game aren't important, other than that each player has to follow whatever suit is led.

Now before any of us look at our cards, there is clearly a 1 in 4 chance of the card being any particular suit. But once we've each looked at our cards and begun to play the odds change. Two of the players usually can't be certain until the very end of the hand what that specific card is. My problem is that I've really confused myself about how to these odds change as the hand plays out.

Lets say you're dealt 4 clubs, 4 hearts, 4 spades, and 5 diamonds. At this point there are 35 unknown cards, so the probability of it being a club, for instance, are 9/35 = 0.257. Now you start playing the game and lead a club (you don't get to look in the "cat"). The other players follow suit and these 3 clubs are removed from play. There are 33 unknown cards now, but only 7 of which are clubs, so the probability has dropped down to 7/33 = 0.212. Someone else lead clubs two more times and its dropped to 3/29=0.103. If you lead your last club and they both follow suit it appears there is only a 1/27=0.037 chance of a club being in the "cat", but it still feels like it should be closer to 1 in 4.

My reasoning is as follows; if I randomly deal one card face down on a table from a full deck and then ask you to remove twelve clubs from the deck, I am extremely confident that one out of four times the card on the table will be a club. Removing those other cards afterwards did nothing to affect the odds. I could have you remove all 51 cards, and it still wouldn't affect it.

As I write this I can see that in the example where I got 0.037 I've actually calculated the probability of any specific card in my opponents hand or the cat being the missing club, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around what I've done wrong here. Leading clubs four times or leading diamonds four times and having the opponents follow suit isn't that rare so it just can't be the fact that it reduces the odds of a card being in the deck so drastically. I feel like it will be a DOH! moment when someone points it out. Thanks.

This is something that is difficult for some people to get their mind around so don't feel bad about it. What you are discussing is the concept of a priori (no prior knowledge of events) and a posteriori (knowledge of previous events).

Looking at your example "I randomly deal one card face down on a table from a full deck and then ask you to remove twelve clubs from the deck, I am extremely confident that one out of four times the card on the table will be a club." That statement is true only if you don't look at the cards you removed. To carry your example a little further. I'm sure you would also be extremely confident (as would I) that if the removed cards were not looked at that (assuming fairness, etc.) that one out of 52 times that card would be the 2 of clubs. All of that remains true because of no prior knowledge of events. You assumed a 'fair shuffle' so that it was equally likely that any card would be the cat card.

Now, pick up your hand and assume you see the two of clubs. Is the probability still 1/52 that the cat card is the two of clubs? Obviously not. That is because you now have knowledge of previous events (knowledge about the deal). No matter how fairly shuffled, it is impossible for the two of clubs (assuming a fair deck, etc.) to be the cat card.

A similar type problem comes up in the card game Bridge under the name of Restricted Choice. At one time, some 70 years or so ago, there was a rather heated discussion in one of the bridge magazines about this concept.
 
When I play the game Hearts with my parents, we are each dealt 17 cards with one remaining card put into the "cat". The person who takes the first trick gets to look at this card, but nobody else. The specific rules to the game aren't important, other than that each player has to follow whatever suit is led.

Now before any of us look at our cards, there is clearly a 1 in 4 chance of the card being any particular suit. But once we've each looked at our cards and begun to play the odds change. Two of the players usually can't be certain until the very end of the hand what that specific card is. My problem is that I've really confused myself about how to these odds change as the hand plays out.

Lets say you're dealt 4 clubs, 4 hearts, 4 spades, and 5 diamonds. At this point there are 35 unknown cards, so the probability of it being a club, for instance, are 9/35 = 0.257. Now you start playing the game and lead a club (you don't get to look in the "cat"). The other players follow suit and these 3 clubs are removed from play. There are 33 unknown cards now, but only 7 of which are clubs, so the probability has dropped down to 7/33 = 0.212. Someone else lead clubs two more times and its dropped to 3/29=0.103. If you lead your last club and they both follow suit it appears there is only a 1/27=0.037 chance of a club being in the "cat", but it still feels like it should be closer to 1 in 4.

My reasoning is as follows; if I randomly deal one card face down on a table from a full deck and then ask you to remove twelve clubs from the deck, I am extremely confident that one out of four times the card on the table will be a club. Removing those other cards afterwards did nothing to affect the odds. I could have you remove all 51 cards, and it still wouldn't affect it.

As I write this I can see that in the example where I got 0.037 I've actually calculated the probability of any specific card in my opponents hand or the cat being the missing club, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around what I've done wrong here. Leading clubs four times or leading diamonds four times and having the opponents follow suit isn't that rare so it just can't be the fact that it reduces the odds of a card being in the deck so drastically. I feel like it will be a DOH! moment when someone points it out. Thanks.
This reminds me of the Monty hall problem.
Let's expand on that. Suppose I write down a number from 1-100 and ask you to pick a number from 1-100. Then the probability of you being correct is 1/100.
I am told what number you picked (say 82) and then I say the number I picked is not 2 or 6 or 3 or 94 or 56 or 94,,,until there are two numbers left, namely your number and the thr other remaining number. Then some would say that there is a 1 in 2 chance that you picked the correct number. My response to that is how are you so good at picking the correct number?! Think about this-Buy a lottery ticket and have you friend find out the winning number and give her your number. Then have your friend say almost all the numbers that are not the winning number --so in the end there are two numbers left-namely your number and another number. One of those two numbers is the winning number. So you will win the lottery half the time--that is complete nonsense.
But lets change this a little. Suppose someone who does NOT know the winning lottery number asks if 17 is the winning number and is told no it is not and then asks if 534 is the winning lottery number and is told it is not. If this process results in only two numbers left-your number and one other- then there is a 1 in 3 chance of you winning the lottery.
The knowledge that you gained in this last scenario DOES change the probability.
Card counters in blackjack have made big money using the knowledge of the cards that have been played.
I hope this helped a bit.
 
Top