Yes, it’s impossible sometimes, but most hands are marginal enough that with a partner covering you it’s simple enough to dump every card. And at 100 points a pop plus your partner’s bid, the score can get run up really fast, especially if the other team underbid and is dumping books to try and fuck you. Even if you don’t get it, at 100 points a pop why wouldn’t you just do it every hand anyway if the swing is so large?
Except for a minimum of 3, this is how I always play when not on a computer.
David Parlett in A History of Card Games theorized that modern card-players don’t like misere or “null” bids (as a bid of “nil” is known in many European games). He thinks it’s a result of positive-bid-only games such as Bridge dominating the card-playing scene.
I think he’s got a point. Think of how “negative” games like Lowball or Hearts are rather looked down upon in some circles. Even in completely different games, such as Skat from Germany, there are certain groups that frown on bids of Null as somehow antithetical to the main object of the game. And when I used to play Blackout Whist (that game where the first deal is one card, the second two, etc.), anyone who bid zero was usually groused at.
So, in essence, the complaint against bidding “nil” is coming from the mindset that “this game is about winning, not losing, tricks.” You can’t bid zero no trump in Bridge, and some players carry that over into other games.
In my experience, only a blind nil is worth 100 points, regular nil worth 50.
I would wager that the success rate on a blind nil (if you have no other knowledge about others bets) is well, well below 50%. In fact, I’m reasonably sure I’ve only made one or two in thousands and thousands of hands (although we generally don’t use them in the games I’m in).
Finally, I just don’t think that “most hands are marginal enough… it’s simple enough to dump every card” is correct. Like I said, you can’t do it with the Ace (so that’s 25% out right there). You can’t do it with the King unless you get very lucky or your partner has the Ace (probably another 10-15% of hands out right there). You can’t really do it with 4 spades unless both (a) someone else has at least 4 (pretty much required, unless you manage to under-trump against two different players) and (b) their 4th spade is larger than yours. More than 4 spades gets even dicier (and would pretty much require a 9 or 10 bid from my partner before I’d attempt it). That’s probably a good 20-25% more of your hands right there.
I’d argue that with a random hand (and no info about your partner’s hand) it’s much easier/more likely to make a 3 bid than a nil bid.
As for why you don’t want to take those huge gambles, well, you want to win the game, or lose by the smallest amount possible. The best way to do that is to make high bids, regular nils while possible, and occasionally make a run at setting the other team (either with a slight sandbag bid - taking into account the bag situation) or breaking a nil bid.
I guess I could see a team strategy where one player always bet high and the other always (or almost always) bet nil. Then you could be reasonably sure that the “dump tricks” your partner scooped up would make his bid and offset your nil bid should you get set. Although, quite frankly, that type of collusion would probably be frowned on in the low-stakes games I’ve played.
I do like the argument Duke put out there. Nil bidding does dramatically change the nature of the hand - and it happening too often makes the game rather less fun. I’d hate to be in a game where almost every hand was a nil hand.
Someday I’ll learn bridge. Although, as someone who also enjoys Hearts quite a bit, perhaps I’m too low-brow…
Really? I used to play a lot of skat and null bids were an exciting part of the game. They did get frustrating when you have a great hand and want to bid up your suit, but get either forced to bid higher than you originally wanted to, or shut out of the bidding, but it’s an essential part of the strategy of the game. I’ve never played in games where I got the sense that it was looked down upon in any way. What I did dislike is ramsch rounds (a house rule where if all three players pass, person who takes the most points loses that many points from his hand. Plus optional multipliers if any players take no tricks. Plus optional multipliers if players pass the skat [don’t exchange with the kitty] before the opening lead.) It just leads to massive negative scores that are difficult to overcome and leads to players making strategic bids they know they’re not going to make just to avoid getting stuck in ramsch.
I love games with null bids like skat, ulti, tarock, etc.
And I personally find hearts much more entertaining than spades. The only negative to hearts is it’s not a partnership game (if you’re into partnership games). Otherwise, I find the gameplay and strategy much more interesting in hearts, but YMMV.
Microsoft Spades “allows” it because it is part of the game.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=wbOfahTpYWgC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=according+to+hoyle+spades&source=bl&ots=prOUMDLReo&sig=3bSe6Qi3O08zBE5KXLmL8NtYNdA&hl=en&ei=GLLZS_TxFsH98Ab26vl0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
All veteran card players will agree that Hoyle is considered the authority on card games.
Come on, Spades is a children’s game, so if you don’t like the rules , play something more challenging… like Bridge.
Hoyle can blow me. You don’t have to like the way I play the game.
It’s more than worthwhile, it’s an essential strategy to the complexity of the game. And current score should be irrelevant when deciding to go double Nil. It’s all about preexisting bids, particularly your partner’s. If your partner bids 5, you can almost guarantee he’s got the A, with 6 or higher it’s a given.
Because, if you actually determine stakes by the difference in the two scores, sure you can have large payoff, but you can also have large deficits. Not to mention that every trick you take on a Nil bid is a bag. 10 bags equals another 100-point deficit.
Not according to traditional rules. Nil is 100, Blind Nil 200.
I disagree. Spades is only a children’s game because people wuss out the rules on Nil and Blind Nil and/or bet them willy-nilly, and don’t know how to correctly strategize. I used to play online with my roommate in college and we’d usually wipe the floor with most other teams because they were pretty much clueless as to how to play. And out of principal I would never blind nil without good reason. While I’ll give you that it’s not as strategic as Bridge, I consider it more strategic than Hearts or Euchre.
I completely agree with you. But, apparently, some of the more serious Skat addicts don’t like the null bids. Of course, I’m talking here about the same kind of people who nearly come to blows over whether Grand should count as 20 or 24, so maybe that’s a fairly specialized subset.
I love nil bids,whether I’m trying to go nil or if I’m trying to make someone on the other team that bid nil to eat a trick.
Particularly fun is when your partner bids first and declares a nil bid, the next guy bids something like 7 or 8, and you look at your cards and you’re like “I’m going nil too!”. That can be real challenging depending on how some of the suits lead.
Or when your partner goes nil and so does someone from the other team. Suddenly you are thrust into an interesting role of protector and aggressor.
Spades is loads of fun. I learned it in prison, which of course is the best way to learn it.
Wow. That changes things dramatically… I wonder how we arrived at 50… I’ll have to mention that during our next game. After reading the wiki I see we’ve never awarded a bonus for blind bidding either - that would also make the game more interesting I believe.
I would think a nil bonus/penalty of 100 might actually reduce the number of nil bids, no?
Now that I think harder it, I do believe we did play with blind nils, because that strategy sounds really familiar to me. It’s been over ten years since I last played, as our group moved on to other trick-taking games. I do agree that it’s more strategic than euchre (although euchre has its strategic quirks in the bidding, too), but what I like about euchre is calliing trumps in addition to simple bidding. That’s where games like bid whist and skat and the like start becoming really interesting. Hearts I enjoy because it’s a trick-avoidance game, and there aren’t really many popular games of that type, so it’s a fun change of pace. I also enjoy the card exchanging strategic aspect of it, which is partly why it feels slightly more strategic to me than spades. But, like spades, you’re fixed to a trump (or anti-trump) suit, which makes it a little duller in the long run, in my opinion, than other games of the type.
As long as you realize you’re not actually playing Spades but something less complex.:rolleyes:
I was kidding…
If you ever played with us you’d see our game is actually much more complex, even without any nil bullshit.
when i was in college we played a shit pot of spades. and i think that it was unusual for someone not to go nellow on each deal.
of course, house rules were that the nil bidder got to pass a card to his partner. and on blind nellows it was a three card pass.
so that probably changes the dynamics greatly.
course we were also three sheets to the wind and stoned out of our minds so it kind of had to not involve a lot of cerebral activity. lot’s of “who took the last trick” and “whose turn is it to deal” kind of antics.
Wikipedia:
Wouldn’t partners go set a lot with a min bid of 4?
If you add spades to the top it becomes rare.