Januahy 2, 1888.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



71 



(But Wl\)i0t Columiu 



By "Five of Clubs." 



THE DOG AXD THE SHADOW. 



If you will not when you may. 



When you will you shall have nay. — Old Proverb. 



WAS a looker-on, a few months ago (down in Florida), 

 at a game of whist which illustrated charmingly the 

 folly of the two commonest mistakes of the unscien- 

 tific whist-player — (1) the idea that the fall of two 

 trumps for one is bad for those who played them, 

 where one of these has held a considerable strength ; 

 and (2) the notion that a ruff is always a gain for 

 the ruifer. 



1 had been told to watch the play of an old gentleman whom we 

 will call A (his partner being B) ; but I quickly found that his oppo- 

 nent on the left (Y), a comparatively young man, and a stranger to 

 the rest of the company, was a much better player ; while Z, the 

 fourth player, though weak so far as original play was concerned, 

 had none of that fatal cleverness which injures the game of those 

 who trust wholly in their own ideas and will learn nothing from the 

 stored experience of tens of thousands of players and a century 

 and a half of play. 



In the particular game which interested me most among those I 

 watched, A had a long suit of diamonds, which he was lucky in 

 seeing established in two rounds, leaving him four long diamonds, 

 all small but all (as he perfectly weU knew) as good as trumps 

 (hearts) when trumps should be out. At the first opportunity A 

 ver}- properly led trumps (having four, headed by the king), and 

 after three rounds, Z having had but one trump, A remained with 

 king of trumps, B holding the queen, and Y a small one, obviously 

 to all the table. Also, A held a small club, a suit of which his 

 partner was void. 



At this stage A had a choice between two good lines of play. 

 His plainest course was to draw out the remaining trumps and 

 make the four small diamonds ; five tricks off the reel — which, with 

 three made before, would give A-B two by tricks. The best course, 

 however, was to force Y with a diamond, when, if Y yielded to the 

 force, A could make his king trump by ruffing, then his three small 

 diamonds, and finally give B a ruff, who might, as far as A could 

 tell, be then able to make the last trick, in whicii case A-B would 

 make three by tricks ; and in any case A-B could not make fewer 

 than two by tricks on this line as on the other. So that this was 

 the correct play, though as the cards lay nothing would have been 

 gained by it. 



But the first of these courses was most objectionable to A, because 

 it involved the fall of two tramps, and the two best trumps at that, 

 for one of the enemy's. This was contrary to A's ideas of sound 

 whist plaj", and his every word and gesture showed that he held 

 himself the soundest player there. The other course was not less 

 objectionable to him, for it would enable Y to make his little trump 

 by ruffing one of A's winning diamonds. 



Manifestly, A considered the proper thing to play for was to let 

 B make his trump separately, then to capture Y"'s, make the long 

 diamonds, and so secure three by cards. It did not occur to him 

 that this, though a very proper thing to be done, if it could be done, 

 was not at all the right thing to play for if it could not possibly be 

 managed. If B were thus given the opportunity of making his 

 trump queen, he could not possibly give A a lead whereby to extract 

 Y's small trump. The only lead he could give A would be by forcing 

 him, when 1' would remain with the last trump and winning 

 cards (as it happened) in clubs and spades, not one of A's esta- 

 blished diamonds being of the le.ast use to him. Thus two more 

 tricks only would be made instead of five, and A-B would lose the 

 odd trick instead of making two or three by tricks. 



As a matter of fact, B did not ruff the card A had led to him for 

 the purpose. Whether he had some half-formed notion that the 

 only chance now left for A to get in his diamonds lay in B's passing 

 this trick, on the chance that Y, who had taken it (bar the ruff), 

 would lead a trump to draw two for one, w.is not clear. My notion 

 is that B simply dechned to ruff Y"'s winning club, a ten only, 

 because he thought the queen of trumps too good a card to be used 

 for that purpose, for most of B's play had been unutterably weak. 

 Be this as it may, B passed the trick. Y immediately began to lead 

 out winning spades, forcing A (for B had plenty of the suit). Then 

 A, having nothing better to do, led a diamond, Y ruffed, B over- 

 ruffed ; and B having only spades to lead to Y"s strength in the suit, 

 Y made all the remaining tricks. Thus Y'-Z made on this line the 

 odd trick, as they would had B ruffed at the outset. This sequel 

 strengthens the illustration which the game afforded of the folly of 

 the doctrine that it must b§ good to draw two trumps from the 



enemy for one, and bad to draw two trumps from your own side for 

 one from the enemy. For had Y played this game A would have made 

 all his long diamonds, and A-B would have made two by tricks. 



A immediately explained to B what his object had been, adding, 

 " How unfortunately it turned out ! " He should have said, " How 

 ill I played ! " Y simply scored the odd trick and smiled. He 

 evidently felt it was no part of his business to teach his opponents 

 better play. 



DOUBLE DUMMY PLAY AND A DOUBLE DUM.MY 

 PROBLEM. 



It has been said by Mr. F. H. Lewis, one of the finest whist- 

 players living, and beyond all doubt the most skilful composer of 

 double dummy problems, that double dummy is the grammar of 

 whist. Players who doubt the value of accuracy in whist conversa- 

 tion should play double dummy awhile. It will give them entirely 

 new ideas. . Skill tells more in this game than in any form of 

 whist, especially when played, as it certainly should be, without 

 counting honours. (To my mind there is something absurd in 

 counting honours, which depend solely on chance, at this purely 

 scientific game.) In the long run, the best player invariably wins 

 at double dummy ; and in my own experience I have found that 

 where there is any marked disparity of skill, every sitting of an hour 

 or so leaves the better player ahead, the cards never running so 

 strongly to one side as to let the weaker gain the majority of points. 

 In my lecturing tour in the South in the season 18S5-G, I lightened 

 many hours of railway travelling by double dummy play with a 

 friend (and relative) who travelled with me. He had had less 

 practice in whist play than I, and had studied the language of the 

 game much less (which is a very different matter, by the way). 

 Now, though the cards would often run so heavily against me that 

 I would lose ten or twelve points in the course of half an hour or 

 so, every sitting ended by placing mo further ahead, and when our 

 travels ended 1 was I'Jl points to the good (we were "playing for 

 love ■'). In actual whist this would not happen. It was easy to see 

 how the effect of correct play came in. With good cards success 

 was more complete ; with bad cards failure was less disastrous. 

 Five times I scored every trick (being twice able to announce from 

 the beginning that this would be the result), and many times 

 against apparently overwhelming hands I lost only the odd trick, or 

 even made the trick. All this shjws what may be done by the 

 proper conduct of the game ; and play, by which inferences as to 

 the position of various cards may be early formed, enables watchful 

 partners to do to some degree what the double dummy player can 

 effect. 



Next to actual double dummy play in value as whist practice 

 comes the study of double dummy problems. Here is a problem by 

 Mr. Lewis (it is taken from the " Westminster Papers," I need hardly 

 say), which will be found worth careful study. It is not difficult — 

 atleast for those who have had practice in double dummy plaj-. 

 Solvers should keep their solution for comparison with the analysis, 

 which will shortly appear, as it is impossible for me, living as I do in 

 Florida, to examine the various solutions : — 



THE HANDS. 

 „ /H. (trumj>g).—A, Kii, S, 6, 5. C— A, K, Kn, 4.1 



1.S.-2. 



10, i. 



'H. (?/«).— (J 



S.-Q. 



C— Q, 10, 6, .5. 

 LD.— Q, 0, 8, 7, 5. 



D.— A, 6, 4. 



H. (tpg).—K, 7, 

 S — K, 10, 0, 8, 

 C— !). S, 7, 2. ( 



D.— Kn. J 



?:L 



. /H. (trumps).— i\, 3. 

 "* IS.— A, Kn, 6, 5, 4, 3. 



Q 3_ ") 



D.— K, 10, 3, 2. J 



Hearts are trumps. A leads. How many tricks can A-B make 

 against the best defence ? 



Loose model bcildisg stoxes, manufactured by Eichter & 

 Co., and issued with books of instruction, showing how model arches, 

 bridges, vaultwork, mosaic floors, and miniature houses can be con- 

 structed by very young people, m.ay certainly be considered in the 

 light of scientific toys of high order, and following, as they do, the 

 form of ordinary bricks with decimal exactness, they afford oppor- 

 tunities of instruction to youthful minds in architecture and practical 

 building. The fact of their being coloured tends to artistic training 

 also. These stones or bricks can be advantageously adopted by the 

 architect or builder for experimental purposes. We can, therefore, 

 confidently recommend them to students of building and architec- 

 ture, who would undoubtedly derive valuable assistance from them. 



