This is one of those situations in which you face a sheer guess, and you have no clues for guidance. Either play could be right. Your partner still has more to learn about this game. (By the way, Puzzle 16 in the Spades Puzzle section shows a similar hand with the same theme.)

• trump high to prevent an overtrump or force a higher spade
• trump low and allow the overtrump
• discard from a plain suit.

This is a very complex situation, one that involves too many variables for there to be a general rule. Even worse is the fact that it is usually impossible for you have enough information to determine the best play. For example, does partner have the nine of spades and LHO the eightspot, or vice versa?

You can try constructing a few deals yourself to show that a situation for which it is right to trump high may be altered to a discard case merely by switching around a few cards. In summary, you are in a guessing situation, which is often the case in Spades.

I get a lot of questions regarding rules and scoring, especially with regard to little-known options. It is important to note that there is no 'official' set of rules for Spades and that everyone plays the game slightly differently.

The best answer to any scoring question is that you score the game however your group decides. All other rules variations are decided the same way, by group agreement (or as stated by the group's loudest player). If you later join a different group of Spade players, be prepared to discover that they have different group agreements. Any way you want to do it is just fine.

1. They will usually allow you to bring home an unmakeable bid, rather than gain the obvious set.
2. They will pass up a few tricks at the beginning of the hand. By making a strong finish, your side can set them often.
3. They don't work as a team. If one opponent is struggling, the other will not come to his rescue.

1. Bid aggressively, especially in fourth seat.
2. Take finesses often. Against baggers these plays will win more often than they normally do.
3. Always play for the set, even if it means taking an extra bag or two.

Of course, the above assumes that your partner plays the same way as you. If you're stuck with a partner who is also sucked into the bagging game, finish up and find a new partner.

[See also these two articles in Spades Strategy:
Anonymous on Bagging and Bagger's Opera.]

The correct way of playing the AQx combination for two tricks is not to lead the suit at all, but to wait until someone else leads it. If the lead comes from your left you are guaranteed two winners. If partner or your left-hand opponent leads the suit you will insert the queen, again taking two tricks unless the king is on your left. These are favorable odds.

I've seen your strategy published before elsewhere on the web. Someone else was very proud of his discovery, but this method is really a poor strategy. It may be effective against a weak opponent on your left who will not cover your queen, but a strong player will always cover. In fact, covering your queen is one clue that there is an experienced player on your left.

We can disregard the case in which partner has the king because then any method will work. But if the king is located on your right, you have found a way to turn a sure winner into a sure loser. Instead of 2/3 odds, think in terms of 1/50, or less.

I get a lot of questions about the renege and other infractions. Maybe this will help clear up some misunderstandings. Suppose Team A claims that Team B has reneged. Team B is indignant, feeling as though their honor has been stained. They claim they have a right to restrict Team A from proving the claim.

All of the above is false. Most reneges are accidental and are not an accusation of misconduct. The deal must be played out after which all of the players cooperate in a sportsmanlike fashion to find out what actually happened. All of the cards can be examined, generally by the player who made the claim, or this player can ask the others to expose certain cards. Team A, the non-offending side, can never be restricted from examining the cards and can never pay a penalty even if the claim was invalid.

A player who knows that he has reneged is not obligated to mention it, but is encouraged to do so as an example of good sportsmanship. There is no penalty on a player who reneges but fails to announce it.

Here are the Rules of Spades that apply to the renege:

A player who fails to follow suit when able to do so has committed a renege, or revoke. A renege may be corrected before the start of the next trick. In that case, the offending player substitutes a correct card, and the players who follow may also change their cards. However, the improper card remains face up on the table and is treated as an exposed card.* There is no additional penalty.

Once play has begun to the next trick, the renege is established and cannot be corrected. Play continues until the deal is complete, at which time the cards are examined to verify the claim. The penalty for an established revoke is the loss of the bid for the offender's team and credit of a successful bid to the opponents. Overtricks are not scored. If the renege was made by a side that has a nil bid, the nil bid is automatically lost. The partner of the nil bidder is given credit for his bid if it was fulfilled before the renege trick, but it is also lost if it was not fulfilled before the renege.

*An exposed card must be played at the first legal opportunity.

One of the charms of the game of Spades is that partners frequently get in each other's way. One player might be trying to set while the other goes passive, avoiding bags. Or one partner might cut a trick, dropping his partner's ace. That's part of Spades.

If there is any solution at all, it would come from experience. An expert can deduce his partner's strategy, and can also "read" his partner's hand. He can then play accordingly. There are a few examples in Master Deals in which a player does just that. For example,
see Master Deal #21

I don't see why you are reluctant to lead from Qx doubleton. The lead of the queen from this combination is a strong, attacking lead that also provides safety. It should be high on your list of favorable opening leads.

You hope to find Pard with strength in the suit, ideally AKxx or AJ10x. In the latter case, Pard should duck your queen (if not covered). This is how you trap the King in LHO's hand.

If Pard's holding is only Axx, he should still duck the queen. Your queen may hold the trick, in which case you've pulled off a Chinese finesse. (Oops! That was several years ago. These days they call it a "dry finesse.")

Of course, if Pard has only low cards in this suit, you've given away nothing. The opponents will cash their ace and king as they are entitled to do anyway. As for starting with a small card from Qx, there is nothing to recommend this action.

Many creative players have asked me to look at their new bidding system and have asked me to evaluate it. I am glad to do so, and will post any system if I have permission but will keep it confidential if that's what my guest asks me to do.

The topic I wish to address is secret codes between partners. I have seen several systems that depend on bids that do not have their normal meaning. Some relate only to a player's spade holdings, some to the potential for nil coverage, and others are deliberate underbids by a specified amount.

Such bids are perfectly legal provided that the opponents are properly informed. It is not permissible to have a secret meaning to any bid or card play. Such tactics are no more honest than kicking your partner under the table.

The right way to introduce an original system to play is to make an announcement to your opponents before play begins: "We are experimenting with a new system. If one of us bids nil in first position, partner must automatically bid 2." If you make such a statement, you can then legally play any bidding system you wish. The use of secret meanings to bids is a dishonest form of play.

Hold Everything!

Since I posted the above opinion a couple of months ago I have received a large number of protests from Spades players who see things differently. I am ready to revise my hard-line position about secret codes.

The principle that there be no secret agreements is the long-standing law for the related game of Bridge. But Spades is not Bridge. As it has been pointed out to me, where do the Spades rules state that a 2-bid, for example, must always carry only its conventional meaning? As long as a player does nothing more than call out "Two!" why can't this bid mean anything that the partnership has agreed? And why must this agreement be revealed to the opponents?

I relent on my former stand. There is room in Spades for secret bidding systems, as long as there are no gestures or mannerisms involved. In a way, we must yield to the fact that such systems will always be tested and applied regardless of the game's law. The nature of Spades may be altered when players are allowed to develop secret codes, but I can't say that bad things must happen. I withdraw my previous remarks about dishonesty or ethics. Let's permit players to experiment with their systems and see what happens.

This is a complicated situation and it is not helped any by the fact that Partner's lead can be from several holdings: singleton J, doubleton Jx, or a longer combination that is headed by J10. One thing you know for sure is that Partner has neither the king nor queen. If you play the ace you will have set up two winners for the enemy.

Playing a low card will, on the average, hold them to only one winner in the suit -- which is fine for them since they only counted the suit for one trick in the bidding. In rare cases the jack will win; in other rare cases you will not get your ace. It hardly seems that the potential for gain justifies the risk.

I think that the answer lies outside of this suit. As usual, check your spade length. If you have four or more spades, I recommend you let the jack go. With three or fewer spades, take your ace at once.