Bidding to win all 13 tricks

[JusterGame]

If a player who is losing bids 13 tricks when they certainly cannot achieve it (an opponent holds Ace Spades), is that

(A) an interesting strategy or
(B) bad gamesmanship?

[el cosimo]

If a player who is losing bids 13 tricks when they certainly cannot achieve it (an opponent holds Ace Spades), is that

(A) an interesting strategy or
(B) bad gamesmanship?

I don’t like players that loose, playing very bad. I see that in oh hell too.. you depend also on your bidding on others. And when they play very bad just to make it difficult for the rest, is a very bad gamesmanship.

Yeah there is no rule to block it but it is a bit unfair. In spades as partner i think I will red thumb him because everything is possible. Two bad games on a row and situation can be switched.

[mickalot]

If a player who is losing bids 13 tricks when they certainly cannot achieve it (an opponent holds Ace Spades), is that

(A) an interesting strategy or
(B) bad gamesmanship?

I haven't seen a player do this in actual play, but thinking generously about why someone might bid a sure-to-lose 13, perhaps it's because the BGA Spades interface is quirky in how/when it lets you concede a match. IIRC, the interface only lets you concede when you're down by a lot (200 or more, I think?), and only immediately before your bid.

So perhaps a player wants to concede, but their team isn't behind enough to be offered the concede button. Then they notice that the opponents have bid an amount that isn't enough to end the match this round but partner's bid won't stave off the inevitable, so they'll be forced to play yet another hand in what has probably been a frustrating match to begin with. Bidding 13 can pretty much guarantee you'll be offered the concede button for the next hand, and sends a clear signal to your partner that you did it on purpose because you'd like them to join you in conceding.

Concrete example:

• you're down 450-260 against skillful players, you want to concede, but aren't offered the concede button.

• Partner bids 5, opponents bid 4, and you bid last, holding a weak hand that can't go nil, realistically a 1 bid.

• If you actually bid 1, most likely everyone will make their bid and the score will be 490-320 (ish), so you'll be in a situation where you still want to concede, but once again won't be offered the chance to do so, and you'll have to play yet another hand without the opportunity to concede.

It's probably bad gamesmanship to unilaterally give up on the game without your partner's agreement, although it might be considered table talk to have that conversation during the bidding phase, too. Most players seem to dutifully slog out those last few hands out of respect for the other players at the table, but it's often un-fun, as the leading team plays super-defensively so as not to jeopardize their win, and sometimes it can take a long time to actually end the match.

It's unfortunate that one can't offer to concede a match at any point (i.e., the way you can offer to abandon a match at any point), to mercifully end a game that's stopped being fun for some of the players, although there's probably a good reason they didn't implement it that way.

[el cosimo]

To concede you need to be with two and when you bid 13 you are not sure the partner accept it.

[All7Pangaea]

Yes, no need to have 13 bid even an option really.