Spades rule
Jeff White
rules of Spades.
From doing some reading here and there, I've discovered something called
"sluffing", a variation in Spades.
The simplified rules of Spades (as I've learned them) are:
1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
2. If you can't play a higher lead suit, you must play the lead suit
if possible.
3. If you don't have the lead suit, you must beat the highest trump
card already played, if possible.
4. If you can't beat the highest trump, then any card can be played.
Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) there is a variation in the game which
allows "sluffing", which negates rule #3. In a game using "sluffing", it is
NOT required to beat the highest trump.
Can anyone give me a definite answer and possible point me to some resources
(i.e., rule books, associations, etc.) which I can use for references? Thanks.
Jeff
David A. Kaye
" I am having trouble getting a definitive answer on a question I have about the
" rules of Spades.
I have not yet found a rule book which has anything similar to the rules
people seem to know. Not even Hoyle's, which for some reason is taken to
be an important rule book.
" The simplified rules of Spades (as I've learned them) are:
" 1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
No, you must play in the same suit if possible, but sometimes you don't
want to play something higher, say if you don't want to lead the next
hand.
" 3. If you don't have the lead suit, you must beat the highest trump
" card already played, if possible.
No, I haven't heard of that either. (I run a weekly game night with lots
of people who play spades, so this is not just my belief.) If you don't
have the led suit you play whatever you want.
--
(c) 1996 Franklin Roosevelt's presidential car was an armored
David Kaye car confiscated from gangster Al Capone.
John McLeod
>I am having trouble getting a definitive answer on a question I have about the
>rules of Spades.
>
>"sluffing", a variation in Spades.
>
>
>1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
>
> if possible.
>
> card already played, if possible.
>
>
>Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) there is a variation in the game which
>allows "sluffing", which negates rule #3. In a game using "sluffing", it is
>NOT required to beat the highest trump.
>
>Can anyone give me a definite answer and possible point me to some resources
>(i.e., rule books, associations, etc.) which I can use for references? Thanks.
1. You may like to look at the rules of Spades given on my web site (URL
in my sig).
2. The version of the game which allows "sluffing" seems to be (judging
by the correspondence I have had) far more widespread than your version
in which you have to beat the highest card so far played to the trick.
3. The version with "sluffing", which I take to be the usual version, in
fact negates your rule #1 *and* you rule #3 - the only requirement is
that you follow suit whenever you can. You are never forced to trump,
and you may always play under the card winning the trick even though you
could have beaten it.
4. There are no definitive answers to questions about Spades. There are
numerous of different ways of playing it and no general agreement about
which way is right.
--
John McLeod jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk 10011...@compuserve.com
For information on card games visit http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/card-games/
michael kelly
wh...@primenet.com (Jeff White) writes:
|> I am having trouble getting a definitive answer on a question I have about the
|> rules of Spades.
There are no definitive rules for Spades, only conventions.
|> From doing some reading here and there, I've discovered something called
|> "sluffing", a variation in Spades.
|> The simplified rules of Spades (as I've learned them) are:
|>
|> 1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
|>
|> 2. If you can't play a higher lead suit, you must play the lead suit
|> if possible.
|>
|> 3. If you don't have the lead suit, you must beat the highest trump
|> card already played, if possible.
|>
|> 4. If you can't beat the highest trump, then any card can be played.
WWwhat you describe are the accepted rules for throwing cards in pinochle.
Most variants of Spades have simpler rules for tricks:
1) Any suit may be led, except spades, which can only be led if
it is broken or the winner of the previous trick holds nothing but spades.
2) Everyone must follow suit. If someone cannot follow suit, they
may throw any card, including trump (spades).
3) You are never obligated to try to win a trick, either by beating
what was led, or over-trumping.
Spades is more like Bridge (with finesses) than Pinochle (which
forces certain cards out)
--
+ Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics mke...@ovid.helios.nd.edu +
+ +
+ Oh, and never mind the words, just hum along and keep on going. +
+ - Ian Anderson +
Jeremy Despain
d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>Jeff White wrote the quoted material below:
>" I am having trouble getting a definitive answer on a question I have about the
>" rules of Spades.
>I have not yet found a rule book which has anything similar to the rules
>people seem to know. Not even Hoyle's, which for some reason is taken to
>be an important rule book.
>" The simplified rules of Spades (as I've learned them) are:
>" 1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
>No, you must play in the same suit if possible, but sometimes you don't
>want to play something higher, say if you don't want to lead the next
>hand.
>" 3. If you don't have the lead suit, you must beat the highest trump
>" card already played, if possible.
>No, I haven't heard of that either. (I run a weekly game night with lots
>of people who play spades, so this is not just my belief.) If you don't
>have the led suit you play whatever you want.
>--
>(c) 1996 Franklin Roosevelt's presidential car was an armored
>David Kaye car confiscated from gangster Al Capone.
I Agree wit David Kaye, I play Spades almost every week. That's the
rules we play by! In addittion, I learned that you can try to 'cheat'
and not follow suit. But if you play that suit later and a member of
an opposing 'team' suspects, he can review your won cards to see if
you have cheated. If you get caught cheating you have to give one of
your won sets to the other team, and they can count it as part of
their won tricks.
Another thing I learned (I don't know if it is an official rule) is
that if you are down by 100 or more points you can bid blind. That
is, you can bid before you see your cards. The result is getting
doulbe the points. If you bid 5 and get 52 you would git 102 points.
When playing with four players (2 teams) the minimum blind bid is 5.
When you bid blind there is no penalty for going double.
Jeremy Despain
jer...@oneoffcd.com
T. Jordan
>>" The simplified rules of Spades (as I've learned them) are:
>>" 1. You must play a higher lead suit if possible.
>>No, you must play in the same suit if possible, but sometimes you don't
>>want to play something higher, say if you don't want to lead the next
>>hand.
This second is most common. I have played hundreds of games of
spades! Knowing when not to take a trick is half the skill in Spades.
>>" 3. If you don't have the lead suit, you must beat the highest trump
>>" card already played, if possible.
>>No, I haven't heard of that either. (I run a weekly game night with lots
>>of people who play spades, so this is not just my belief.) If you don't
>>have the led suit you play whatever you want.
I think there is some confusion with Pinochle. In that game I have
seen it that you must take the trick if at all possible.
>Another thing I learned (I don't know if it is an official rule) is
>that if you are down by 100 or more points you can bid blind. That
>is, you can bid before you see your cards. The result is getting
>doulbe the points. If you bid 5 and get 52 you would git 102 points.
>When playing with four players (2 teams) the minimum blind bid is 5.
>When you bid blind there is no penalty for going double.
Often when playing teams...we would allow Blind Nils and Double Blind
Nils. Blind nils is where one of the partners declares nil without
looking at his cards. Double is when both do.
From playing spades for many years.....
Todd
David C. Jones
: >I have not yet found a rule book which has anything similar to the rules
: >people seem to know. Not even Hoyle's, which for some reason is taken to
: >be an important rule book.
To my recollection, there is no copywright on the name "Hoyle" and
anyone writing/publishing a set of rules can use it. There are
supposed to be ways to tell a genuine Hoyle from a stolen one.
One of the genuine Hoyle's I have seen contained a great number
of variations on the games. Also, all of the rules are spelled
out very meticulously as well instructions regarding how to
handle rule violations. Genuine hoyles are considered to be
important for those two reasons. If you plan on running a tournament
or any type of "official" game, Hoyle provides a published pre-set
list of rules which everyone has access to. Many rule books
do not have instructions regarding rule violations, and if such
a situation occurs without instructions, the game players are at
the mercy of an officiator to which they have no idea how the outcome
will be resolved. In short, Hoyle books are complete and concise
whereas most books only provide rules that are adequate for normal
friendly play.
: I Agree wit David Kaye, I play Spades almost every week. That's the
: rules we play by! In addittion, I learned that you can try to 'cheat'
: and not follow suit. But if you play that suit later and a member of
: an opposing 'team' suspects, he can review your won cards to see if
: you have cheated. If you get caught cheating you have to give one of
: your won sets to the other team, and they can count it as part of
: their won tricks.
I have played this way also, only we take two tricks instead of
one. If you REALLY know what your doing your cheating can allow
you to take tricks that you normally would not get. In your
method, there is no penalty for trying to cheat. If you get
caught, you only have to give up the one trick which you probably
wouldn't have gotten in the first place. By using a two trick
penalty, not only do you lose the the trick which you should
have lost, but you take a second trick as a penalty for cheating.
Real world example: Suppose you have one diamond which is a loser,
the ace/king of clubs and an assortment of spades/hearts. Club is
led the opening round and your partner will catch the trick without
your help. Sluff your diamond. Now not only do you have the
advantage of being able to trump diamonds, but you saved one of
your club winners. If clubs are divided evenly or you can pull
all of the trump before clubs are play, you can catch another round
of clubs without using trump. By sluffing that one diamond you gain
at least one extra trick and possibly two depending upon how the cards
are split. If you get caught, the only thing you lose is the extra
trick you gained by voiding diamonds and you still have the potential
of getting that extra club trick. In short, you DON'T really take
a loss for cheating. Of course, your opponents can pull similar
stunts, but if the game gets to the point where nobody even follows
suit, you might as well be playing bridge.
Davy J.
--
7800 - 35 2600 - 192 INTV - 63 Coleco - 21 R.E.M. Boots - 17
Maintainer of the Tarot Layouts FAQ
No matter where you go, that is where you will be - Lao Tzu Banzai
Wherever you go, Whatever you do, Whatever you say, Say it with Love
michael kelly
d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
|> Jeremy Despain wrote the quoted material below:
|>
|> " Another thing I learned (I don't know if it is an official rule) is
|> " that if you are down by 100 or more points you can bid blind. That
|> " is, you can bid before you see your cards. The result is getting
|> " doulbe the points. If you bid 5 and get 52 you would git 102 points.
This is hard to work with partners, unless you play "negotiation"
style bidding.
|> This "double nil" bid is a variation I feel doesn't work very well. In
|> the variation (at least what I've heard from several people who play it
|> this way), the double nil bidder is allowed to exchange 3 cards with
|> their partner. In nearly all cases this makes is pretty easy to win a
|> double nil bid, making it nearly useless for a fair game. We've used
|> this in one game group and rejected the double nil bidding altogether.
We allow double-nils (the only double bid we *do* allow) only if
a team is down by 200 points. They may exchange one card after all
bids are complete.
David A. Kaye
Jeremy Despain wrote the quoted material below:
" Another thing I learned (I don't know if it is an official rule) is
" that if you are down by 100 or more points you can bid blind. That
" is, you can bid before you see your cards. The result is getting
" doulbe the points. If you bid 5 and get 52 you would git 102 points.
This "double nil" bid is a variation I feel doesn't work very well. In
the variation (at least what I've heard from several people who play it
this way), the double nil bidder is allowed to exchange 3 cards with
their partner. In nearly all cases this makes is pretty easy to win a
double nil bid, making it nearly useless for a fair game. We've used
this in one game group and rejected the double nil bidding altogether.
--
(c) 1996 No special rights for straight people.
David Kaye Support equal rights; support gay marriage.
Alan Hoyle
David C. Jones (djo...@ponder.csci.unt.edu) wrote:
: : >I have not yet found a rule book which has anything similar to the rules
: : >people seem to know. Not even Hoyle's, which for some reason is taken to
: : >be an important rule book.
: To my recollection, there is no copywright on the name "Hoyle" and
: anyone writing/publishing a set of rules can use it. There are
: supposed to be ways to tell a genuine Hoyle from a stolen one.
: One of the genuine Hoyle's I have seen contained a great number
: of variations on the games. Also, all of the rules are spelled
: out very meticulously as well instructions regarding how to
: handle rule violations. Genuine hoyles are considered to be
: important for those two reasons. If you plan on running a tournament
: or any type of "official" game, Hoyle provides a published pre-set
: list of rules which everyone has access to. Many rule books
: do not have instructions regarding rule violations, and if such
: a situation occurs without instructions, the game players are at
: the mercy of an officiator to which they have no idea how the outcome
: will be resolved. In short, Hoyle books are complete and concise
: whereas most books only provide rules that are adequate for normal
: friendly play.
"Hoyle" in card and game books is like "Webster" in dictionaries. It
really means nothing except there was a famous "Hoyle" who wrote a popular
one in the past. Going by your definition, "Scarne on Cards" is a
"Hoyle" book, IMO. Except (of course) anything I write about card games
is true "according to Hoyle." (maybe I should write a book too.)
-alan
(my Hearts page is http://help.unc.edu/~alanh/hearts.html)
Alan P. Hoyle "I don't want Get
/ _ \ DARKSIDE: UNC-CH Ultimate the World; 0__ Horizontal,
|-=(_)=-| al...@unc.edu I just want __/\_ O Play
\ / http://help.unc.edu/~alanh/ your half." __/ Ultimate.