Below are some common Spades rules, and my opinions about them. I realize that my philosophy about games may be idiosyncratic. Or pedestrian.

Trump allowed on first trick
I slightly prefer this rule to the "no trump allowed on first trick" rule in effect on Playsite. Caveats and exceptions shouldn't be implemented unless it significantly improves the game.

Adjusting to this rule: If you're first to act with an ace in a long suit, do not count the ace as a full trick.

Tricks taken by a nil bid do not contribute towards the team bid (but still contribute towards the bag count)
Another unnecessary caveat, and also a bad rule (in that it eliminates an opportunity for interesting strategy). As discussed at length in this book, intentional nil-breaking can be a powerful strategic tool. If the nil bidder can't help his partner with tricks, much of the power of nil-breaking is taken away, and the game is duller as a result. Notation is also slightly more complicated.

Adjustment to this rule: Be less likely to bid nil as a bluff or to break your own team's nil.

100 for a successful nil bid, -100 for an unsuccessful nil bid
Under this rule, the winner of each game is too often decided by the number and quality of nil hands each team receives during the course of the game.

This rule is much more common than the 50/-50 rule. As a result, I usually receive perplexed or disgusted looks when I talk about deliberately breaking nils.

(Side story: Derek and I played in a little tournament in which the 100/-100 rule was in play. The opposing team made a bid to win, so I went ahead and broke my nil. Every Playsite player would recognize this as a standard play, but these guys, who had logged hundreds of games on zone.com, were taken completely by surprise.)

Adjustment to this rule: you should bid nils a bit more often because your "expectation" for a marginal, or risky, nil is larger. (See chapter on "Basic Bidding" on how to calculate nil expectation.)

Rarely bid nil as a bluff, and rarely break your own team's nil.

If you're covering a nil, protecting your partner is almost always top priority.

If you're opposing a nil, breaking it should be your priority. You can also bid more strongly because the nil will almost never break itself in order to set you. (Note exception in previous story.)

200 for a successful blind nil bid, -200 for an unsuccessful blind nil bid
If you're going to play 100-for-nil, and you want blind nils, then 200-for-blind-nil is mandatory.

No blind nils
I like blind nils, but the game plays just as well (albeit much differently) without them.

Adjustment to this rule: If blind nils are not allowed, then there is no upside to being set. There's rarely an opportunity for tricky bidding and playing; winners are determined by prudent bidding and skillful use of the "TAKE EM" and "ON THE NOSE" strategies (see Chapter 3, "Playing").

Individual bids
There is no hinting; each player bids and the team bid is the sum of each member's bid. With this rule, if the first player bids 4, his partner cannot then team bid less than 4. I think this is a bad rule. There are situations in which a player would really prefer to team bid lower than his partner's bid. I will note that hinting provides a channel for cheating in that a player's hint might be intended to communicate more than just the strength of his hand. However, if a team is intent on cheating, they'll almost certainly find some other, better, way of communicating.

Adjustment to this rule: In situations where the correct bid is strongly dependent upon the current score and the bids of the opponents, the players bidding first for each team may want to underbid, or bid 0, and leave it up to her partner to make the correct team bid.

Bidding 0 not allowed
Another pointless rule (so to speak). Not allowing bids of 0 makes as much sense to me as not allowing bids of 3. The claim "if you bid 0 you may as well bid nil" is simply not true.

Adjustment to this rule: If your partner bids 1, he may have a zero point hand.

Play to 500
I prefer 250-point games both because I love end game play and because I have self-diagnosed ADD. But 500-point games are fun.

500-point games are more skill-dependent because longer playing time provides the better team with more opportunity to outplay their opponents. In a 250-point game, an inferior team can win just by picking up one or two strong no-brainer hands. In a 500-point game, that's not enough. A team needs to play all of their hands well.

If you're playing 100-for-nils, playing to 500 or more is practically a must.

Adjustment to this rule: In the early stages of the game, you should bid and play more straightforwardly. Don't be afraid of bagging out or of undesirable score deficits. If blind nils are in effect, bid aggressively. Late stages are more like end games in 250-point games.