RISK/REWARD
In the 2000 America’s Cup sailing competition, Paul Canard, the skipper of the
American entry, America One, was asked what he thought the key to winning the
Event would be. Paraphrasing, he said that...
We all have fast boats and good crews. Throughout each race you are presented
With risk/reward decisions that have to be made. The team that makes the best
Risk/reward decisions will win the event.
If Paul Canard plays Spades, he must be very, very good.
He understands that the key to success at his sport, in the final analysis, lies outside
Of his sport. lt is not which team has the best sails, or which team has the
Marginally faster boat, or which team has the most muscular winch grinders, but
Which team makes the wisest use of its resources that, in the end, over a series of?
Races, detentions success and failure.
This is absolute cubs the case when it comes to Spades.
Throughout the course of not only each game, but each hand, you are presented
With risk/reward situations, the handling of which will determine whether or not
You win the game.
Many players think that, being that Spades is a card game, the results are primarily
a function of which team happens to get dealt the better cards. 'l`his could not be
further from the truth.
While an occasional game may be determined by luck, over the course of many
games the good teams will always win and the lesser teams will always lose. What
makes one team a good team and another team a lesser team is the degree to which
they properly manage the risk/reward opportunities that present themselves
continually throughout the course of play. Those teams that minimize risk while
maximizing potential reward will win, and those teams that fail to do so will lose.
It really is that simple.
Virtually every strategy and execution guideline presented in the following
chapters is based upon this premise. Risk/reward is mentioned again and again in
order to emphasize the extent to which this Factor should represent the underlying
determinant of almost every decision made throughout a game. The extent to
which you are able to understand and manage this factor will determine how
successful a Spades player you ultimately become.
The key to Spades is not knowing how to underbid and successfully get rid of
potentially wiriiiig cards from your hand, but when to do su.
The key to Spades is not knowing how to stretch your bid to the limit and then
achieve that bid, but when to do so.
The key to Spades is not knowing on what kind of hand to bid IGI, but when to do so.
The key to Spades does not know haw to set a Nil bid, but when to attempt to do so,
The key to Spades does not know how to set a Nil cover bid, but when to attempt
vow does so.
The key to Spades does not know how to avoid taking bags, but when to do so.
The key to Spades is not knowing how to set your opponents bid, but when to
attempt to do so.
In almost all situations, the risk/reward opportunity that your team faces will be
determined by the score of the game. Proper management of risldreward requires
bidding and playing according to the score of the game more than according
to the cards in your hand. This is a very difficult concept for many players to
grasp. It is, however, the key to not losing at Spades
lf you ever hear a player say that he "always bids his l1and," that is a player who
loses many more Spades games than he should. The object of Spades is not to bid
your hand, but to win me game. Players who maintain and understand this focus
win, and those who do not, lose.
If you do not wzuit to hear any more about risk/reward, you should not read any
further in How NOT to Lose at Spades. `|`he primary teaching objective of the
book is Lo get you to view Spades as a game of risk/reward rather than as a game of
cards. This attempt is relentless, and you most likely will succumb. If you do, you
will be well on your way to becoming the very best Spades player that you can be.
EXA M P L E
You and your partner are playing the following hand where the score and bids are as follows:
Score Your Team 274 Pones 264
North 2
West 3 East 2
South 4
After ll Ericka have been played, the situation is the following
North 2/2
4 4 .1
West 3/5 East 2/ l
Q 3 7 e BA
South 4@ Q 6 K
and you are in the lead on trick 12. Obviously, you can see the cards in your hand only,
Your team needs one more trick to make its bid, East’ West already has taken I
bag, and there is one more bag to be distributed on the hand.
On trick l2 you lead the 6 of Spades, West plays his 7, Namath... thinking that you
have the Ace of Spades ducks with the 4 in order to avoid taking what he believes
would be the remaining bag, and East wins the Lrick with the S.
East then leads the Ace of Spades, and your team gets set 011 its bid,
How many points did you· partne1·’s failure to play his Jack of Spades on trick l2
cost your team'?
II your answer is 60 points, you are making one of the most frequent and
serious mistakes in the game of Spades.
MISTAKE 1
You think that getting set costs your team nor 10 times the amount of your bid
you are failing to understand the true cost of getting set, you are not playing with
the appropriate rislo reward approach regarding taking bags versus getting set
anodyne arzdynurpard are losing more Spades games than you should
In the above example, the true cost of North not playing his Spade Jack on the
next to last trick is the difference between the number of points that your team
would have earned had it made its bid, and the number of points that it was
penalized for getting set.
Specifically, if you had made your bid, you would have received 60 points on the
band for a total score of 334 points. As a result of getting set, your team lost 60
points, for a resulting score of 2l4 points. Getting set cost the team 120 points
(more points than the penalty for an entire g&lT1C ARE worth of bags).
Whenever you get set on a hid that you could have made by playing the hand more
conservatively, the cost in lost points to your team is Q times the number of tricks
that your team bid, not 10 times that amount.
In a similar fashion, if your team overbids, for example bids 6 tricks on a given
hand and, try as you might, is able to take only 5 tricks, the overbid does not cost
your team 60 points, but the difference between the points that you would have
scored had you not overbid and the points that you are penalized for getting set.
In this example, if your team had bid 5 tricks it would have eased 50 points for
making its bid, but ended up losing 60 points for getting set on the 6 bid, the
divergence between the two being @ points, the true cost of having pushed the
team bid one trick too high.
An understanding of the true cost of getting set, as a result of either trying to avoid
bags or bidding too high, is essential in order to be able to play Spades with the
Bugs versus Sets
appropriate perspective regarding the potential risk/reward of taking tricks versus,
attempting to bag the opponents. There are times to risk possibly getting set and
many more times not to risk doing so. Only by understanding the true cost of
getting set can you learn to make appropriate judgments concerning this critically
important aspect of play.
Going back to the above example, let’s examine what North’s thought process
should have been when trying to decide whether or not to play his Jack of Spades
on trick l2.
RISK FROM PLAYING JACK
The only possible risk from North playing the Spade Jack on trick l2 is that your
team might win the last 2 tricks on the hand if he does so, and your team does
wind up taking one bag on the hand. This would result in a game score of
Your Team 274 + 61 Z 335
Pones 264+5l=3l5
With this score, it is not likely that having taken the bag would have a meaningful
impact on the outcome of the contest. l fact, everything else being equal, you
would have a slightly greater than 50 percent chance of winning the game.
REWARD FOR NOT PLAYING THE JACK
If North’s assumption that you have the Ace to` Spades turns out to be true, the
team will make its bid exactly, taking no bugs, and the resulting score will be
Your Team 274 + 60 = 334
Pones 264 + 52 = 316
This would by a slightly better score situation tl1an the above case, but certainly
not appreciably so. In short, there is very little risk associated with playing the
Jack and not much potential reward associated with not playing the card.
Now let’s examine the other side of the coin.
RISK FROM NOT PLAYING JACK
The risk from not playing the Jack is the situation which occurred, namely that you
do not have the Ace of Spades and that East/West will win the last 2 tricks, thus
setting your team. The resulting score in this case was
Your Team 274 — 60 = 214
Pones 264 + 53 = 317
From this score point, about the only hope for winning is that the opponents will
eventually earn a bag penalty, and even then that would only result in the game
being up for grabs. This situation surely is one to be avoided if at all possible.
REWARD F OR PLAYING JACK
The potential reward for playing the Jack is that, if you do not have the Ace of
Spades, either the J ask will win the trick, or East will cover the Jack with the Ace,
allowing you to win the last trick if you have the King. In either case, your team
will make its bid. This was the case, and if North had played his Jack, the
resulting score would have been
Your Team 274 + 60 = 334
Pones 264 + 52 = 316
What is interesting, is that this score is exactly the same score as shown above
representing the potential reward for not playing the Jack. The potential reward
for both plays is exactly the same.
The difference lies in the risk associated with the two different plays. In one case,
playing the Jack, there is very little possible downside. In the other case, not
playing the Jack, the choice made by North, there is a huge price to be paid if the
play fails.
It is this type of risk/reward situation which occurs to one degree or another, not
only on every hand in every game of Spades, but on almost every trick of many
hands played.
Whereas it is not necessary to perform the type of possible score outcome analysis
shown above on every trick played, it is necessary to have a general understanding
or feel for what the potential risks and rewards are for various possible approaches
all throughout the course of play.
Basically, this concerns whether it is time to play using a conservative or an
aggressive approach. The answer to this question will almost always be dictated
by the score of the game, but there is one guiding principle that should never be
forgotten. This principle is that. ..
In general, getting set on y0ur bid is the worst thing that can happen at you in
the game af Spades.
You should never allow your team to get set unless there is a good reason for
doing so (there are several instances where getting set or risking getting set is
appropriate, and these are discussed in later chapters).
Most frequently, however, the average Spades player places an overemphasis on
avoiding taking bags and is not sufficiently conceded with the prospect of getting
set. This is one of the most common reasons why Spades games are needlessly lost.
It is frequently possible to overcome having earned a bag penalty during the
course of a game, but frequently impossible to overcome getting set on any kind of
Significant bid.
One reason why getting set is so deadly is that, due to the fact that it significantly
Increases the number of hands that your team will have to play in order to reach
500 points, it significantly increases the likelihood that your team will earn a bag
Penalty before the game is over. Combine getting set with an eventual bag
Penalty and you might as well congratulate the other team and try again.
Very rarely after losing a Spades game will the losing players be thinking? Y" only
We had not taken a bag penalty in that game. Very frequently, however, they will
Be thinking. .. yon» we had not gotten set and that hand where".
Such is the lament of the losing Spades player. It is for this reason that, if you
Play by one rule and one rule only, that rule must be. ..
DON’T GET SET!