34 



♦ KNOW^LEDGE ♦ 



[December 1, 1887. 





IS THERE ANY SCIENCE IN WHIST? 



E have received the following exhilarating 

 letter from a correspondent who evi- 

 dently does not appreciate " Our Whist 

 Column ": — 



Exactitude being tlie chief corner-stone ot 

 science, ought the word " scientific " to be 

 applied to a game, of which a liaphazard 

 groping in the dark is a chief cliaracteristic ? 

 This is a question that recurs to me each month after a perusal of 

 the Whist articles in Knowledge. Meanwhile I wonder how long 

 there will be persons who entertain the belief that there is some 

 liigh level of this happy-go-lucky game to which they attain, 

 whilft they look down with contempt on what they style " Home 

 AVhist." 



Whist, indeed, is a game of such complexity, the whole thing 

 being worked, too, so much in the dark, that the " superior " player 

 never discovers that he is living under a dehL-iion ; and, if he cannot 

 show by final results that hi« play is more successful than the 

 commonplace play of Mr. Humblemind [but Mr. Bumblepuppy 

 never has a humble mind] " he falls back on his iad luck for an 

 explanation." 



But is it possible that the human mind can go on deceiving itself 

 in this way ? Certainly it may ; for is not the great whist 

 player wlio lives in such delusion in the same boat with many 

 other classes 1 For instance, there are those men who set them- 

 selves up as judges of horseflesh ; they never in the slightest degree 

 realising the complexity of the subject on which they pronounce 

 their confident judgments, though it is perfectly clear to a man of 

 discernment that the intrinsic value of an individual horse as a 

 useful animal can only be discovered by long-continued trial. 

 Politicians and philanthropists, again, deal with questions of great 

 complexity without even for the most part ever discovering that 

 they are so. No failure in the past abates their confidence as they 

 press forward with one idea in their heads. Then there is the 

 weather prophet. He, deluded creature, will call his forecasts 

 " scientific." His case clearly justifies the belief that there can be 

 men who hold that they play a superior " scientific " game, when in 

 truth their play is in effect in no wise superior to that of any 

 person with a passable memory, who can keep his mind on the carcl- 

 table, and who properly appreciates the old proverb about '• a bird 

 in the hand." 



Self-delusion being the explanation, we need not be astonished at 

 what would otherwise be very surprising, namely, new orthodoxies 

 springing up in whist, over-confident people now putting forward 

 fresh discoveries, which they suppose to have been overlooked by 

 hundreds of thousands of players ot past generations, who gave 

 up almost their whole minds and time to the game. Neither need 

 one wonder at seeing each high priest protesting that the other 

 high priests have really no scientitic knowledge of the game on 

 which they presume to instruct the laity. Fbancis Kam. 



Mr. Ram need not have been at the pains to go so far 

 afield for illustrations of persons who knowing nothing of 

 a subject delude themselves into the belief that they know 

 a good deal. P^very paradoxist shares this delusion, and 

 internal evidence might have shown Mr. Ram how natural 

 it is. 



I may state one or two facts which should help to put 

 Mr. Ram right, only I fear he will not accept them. 



First, scientific play does not depend quite so much on 

 imaginary advantage as Mr. Ram imagines. The matter 

 has been put to the test in the most crucial manner — 

 scientific play being matched against unscientific over the 

 selfsame hands dealt in the usual way to a set of players 

 in one room, and repeated card for card for player.s in 

 another room, and the superiority of science thus tested has 

 come out in a way which surprised even experts. The 

 details of the experiment are given in " How to Play 

 Whist," pp. 199 to 201. Sufiice it here to .say that, in all, 

 sixty-six hands were iilayed, absolute equality being secured 

 in regard to cards ; and the scientific players came out eleven 

 points, one. rubber, and twenty-orie tricks ahead of the un- 

 scientific I Of course, the estimate by tricks is the truest ; 

 and it is remarkable that, although, as luck would have it. 



the cards were very unequally divided in the two rooms, 

 insomuch that in one room the good players were eighteen 

 points ahead, while in the other they were seven points 

 behind, they came out ahead, as reijards tricks, in both 

 rooms, being nineteen ahead in one room, and two ahead in 

 the other ! 



In passing, I may note, that I, of all men, least deserve 

 to be charged with despising Home Whist, having written 

 a little book under that name for the special inculcation of 

 correct play. For two years past I have enjoyed sounder 

 and better whist in my home circle than I have ever had 

 or have ever seen played (in so many as half a dozen con- 

 secutive sets) at an}' club. I have seen sound play matched 

 against the clever plans of first-rate players of their own 

 hands (or " bird-in-thebu-h " players) for game after game, 

 till the tricks (honours being left uncounted) have amounted 

 to thousands, and with as steady a gain by scientific p'ay at 

 rates ranging from 8 to 12 per cent., as though the cards 

 had been packed to secure it. I have seen scientific com- 

 bined p'ay matched against the uncultured whist of a keen 

 card player having single dummy for partner, and even here, 

 where the odds are supposed to be nearly 10 per cent, in 

 favour of dummy, scientific play has prevailed decisively 

 (about 9 per cent.). At double dummy, of course, science 

 is everything, and it very seldom happens that even at a 

 single sitting of any length science is beaten by lucky cards. 

 But in fact scientific players can recognise every trick 

 secured by sound play or lost b}' irregular play. When an 

 opponent, by playing out his aces and kings, gives up com- 

 mand, and lets long suits come in and make trick after trick, 

 the scientific player does not need much of his science to see 

 how his gain has been made. When a clever bumble- 

 puppist craftily leads a singleton and rejoicingly makes his 

 rutf, the scientific player knows just how it has happened that 

 through that too clever dodge three or four tricks have come 

 to him which otherwise he would never have made. 



If Mr. Ram has ace, queen, and a small one of a suit, 

 and the eleventh round has come, the enemy on his left 

 holding (to the knowledge of every observant player at the 

 table) king, knave, and a small one, he makes his bird in 

 the hand the ace, lamenting only his bad luck, not his 

 feeble play, when two tricks go to the enemy ; but if, under 

 like circumstances, a correct player leads the small one, and 

 on the return of the suit makes both the ace and queen, 

 nothing will persuade the un.skilful player that the result 

 came from no groping in the dark, but was simply inevitable, 

 and as obvious beforehand to the sound player as the sun in 

 a clear sky. Even if by some amazing chance one can show 

 a player of this sort that in such a case scieitce has saved a 

 trick which nescience would have thrown away, he cannot 

 see the importance of the point. " A trick here, or a trick 

 there, what can that matter ? " he will say. " Why, you 

 yourself admit that by bad play a trick may be made 

 which sound play would have lost. One set of casual tricks 

 balances the other — for anything you can tell," and so forth. 

 But that is just what science knows not to be the case. 

 The scientific whist player can look on complacently when 

 bad play wins a trick here or a trick there, knowing that in 

 the long run all -siich gains are balanced by corresponding 

 losses ; the scientific whist player can in like manner com- 

 placently see play which he knows to be best five times out 

 of nine, turn out badly four times for every five times that 

 it turns out well ; but .science knows assuredl)' that every 

 trick made by s ientific play where unsound play would 

 have missed it, is so much to the balance of gain which 

 in the long run is bound to stand out beyond the gains 

 and losses either way depending on the mere run of the 

 cards. 



As regards his closing remarks, that authorities dispute 



