JrxE 1, 1888.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE 



151 



(Bur WRWt Columiu 



By " Five of Clubs." 



DECISIVE PLAT. 



HE following case, which occurred at play a few 

 evenings since, shows the advantage of prompt 

 decision at whist, and how considerations of wnist 

 strategy sometimes render it desirable to run dead 

 counter to accepted canons. 



I was the dealer (Z), and turned up the heart 

 ace; in my hand I found two small trumps, 

 diamond ace, queen, ten, and two little ones; 

 spade king, queen, and a little one ; club ace 

 and a little one. 



The score was— A-B, three ; Y-Z, two. 



A led a trump, Y played a small one, B put on the knave. The 

 heart ace was the natural card to play under the circumstances. 

 Half a dozen rule-reasons could be cited. A, having led trumps, 

 wanted trumps returned, and, playing the ace, would stop that for 

 the moment. If trumps were returned, B would be leading through 

 Z's honour. Trump strength being with the enemy, it was desirable, 

 according to the usual rule, to show the enemy as little as possible 

 about the position of the remaining trumps. And so forth, and 

 so forth. 



But I played a small trump, feeling — against all cut-and-dried 

 rules — that my doable tenace in diamonds, with re-ent-ring cards 

 in spades and clubs, made that play at least safe, while there was a 

 fair chance of scoring freely. Moreover, A having led trumps, it 

 was quite likely that A-B held between them two by honours, in 

 which case nothing but forward play could save us as the score 

 stood. 



B returned trumps: I passed, .\ taking the trick, and third round 

 falling to my ace : my partner discarded a diamond. (I knew this 

 to be his shortest suit, because I could depend on his recognising 

 my play as emphatically indicating all-round strength ; so that the 

 cut-and-dried rule to discard from the longest suit in presence of 

 the enemy's trump lead would not influence him as against the 

 obvious requirements of strategy.) Two by honours were now 

 declared against us, and the chance of defeat seemed heavy. Yet 

 my play would probably save us a point, even if we were defeated. 

 I led my fourth best diamond — not, as rule would require, the ace ; 

 for on the line I was following everything depended on keeping 

 re-entering cards to the last. Y took the trick with the knave, and 

 returned a small one. As nine had fallen from A, I knew that his 

 king must fall this round to my ace ; otherwise I should have 

 been tempted to play the queen in order to make sure of the entire 

 command of the suit — for a king left in A's hand after my ace was 

 played would have stopped my long suit effectually. (This, how- 

 ever, would have been giving up all chance of game for the certainty 

 of saving only a point.) I next led the queen, which A of course 

 trumped. All the diamonds outside my hand fell to this round. 

 A led a small spade, and the trick fell to my queen— on B's ten. 

 My diamond ten drew A's last trump. A led another small spade. 

 My partner, who held the ace, nine, and two little ones, played a 

 small one, knowing the king must be with me. I made my long 

 diamond — the deuce — and my club ace, then led a spade, knowing 

 my partner must hold the ace and probably the nine. His major 

 tenace in A's suit being thus led up to, he made the remaining 

 tricks. 



Thus \-B made only four tricks, though A held king, queen, ten, 

 nine, eight of trumps, knave and three small spades, king and queen 

 of clubs, and guarded king of diamonds ; while B held knave and 

 two small trumps, and knave, ten, nine of clubs. A-B did not make 

 a single trick in their plain suits, thoug'n holding two kings, two 

 queens, two knaves, two tens, and two nines— out of three. 



Y-Z scored four and the game — which, as it chanced, decided a 

 rubber. 



DOUBTFUL LEAD. 



The able whist editor discusses the question of the right original 

 lead from — ace and two trumps (hearts); ace, queen, ten, and two 

 small clubs ; king and three small diamonds ; and spade queen. 

 [I quote from memory, having mislaid the cutting : but the hand 

 is right, though the suits may be wrong.] He considers that, 

 although the lead of the club ace would be usual and not to be 

 blamed, the lead of spade queen, as giving on the whole fuUest 

 information to partner, would be more effective. I cannot agree 

 with him. It seems to me the immediate declaration of weakness 

 in spades would be apt to have a most damaging effect. For my 

 own part — but I am rather a venturesome trump^le^der — I should 



be apt, unless playing for the odd trick, to take out two rounds of 

 trumps. But I believe the best le.xd would be the penultimate 

 (original fourth best) club. Partner, on recognising that, though 

 holding ace to five, the original leader had not led it, would see 

 that he was holding it as a card of re-entry, and would lead trumps 

 if strong enough to back up the leader's manifest strategy : king 

 of diamonds and even queen of spides would be possible cards of 

 re-entry. 



SCIENCE IN WHISr.— AN ANGRY LETTER. 



Mr. Francis Bam writes me a very angry (I might almost 

 say an abusive) letter, asking if I imagine the readers of these 

 columns will not recognise the unfairness with which he has b^en 

 treated. He in effe^" asserts that I quoted his first letter in full 

 only because I expected to get an easy victory over him, and left 

 his last unquoted because I found I was getting the worst of the 

 discussion. 



I have to apologise to the readers of these columns for quoting at 

 all — in a magazine called Knowledge — from a letter written on a 

 subject about which our correspondent professedly has at present 

 no knowledge. But it so chanced that the letter reached me just as 

 I was putting the finishing touches to an article on the science of 

 whist, and seemed so singularly apropos that I put it at the head of 

 my article, and by sundry touches made the article read like a 

 commentary on the text supplied me b}- Mr. Ram (Knowledge for 

 December 1887). I inserted (Knowledge for January 1888) Mr. 

 Ram's reply, which was, however, in fact no reply at all, as he 

 simply dwelt on the fact that chance plays a more important part 

 in whist than in chess, which every one knows — the real fact being, 

 however, that it is through the part chance plays in whist that the 

 game derives its most essentially scientitic characteristic. 



The matter may be presented in abstract thus ; — 



Mr. Ram, carefully showing that he knows nothing of science in 

 whist, denies its existence, and asserts that success comes as freely 

 to the bumble-puppist as to the man who fancies he is playing a 

 scientific game. I endeavour to make it clear to him and others 

 that (passing over his mistake in writing, too, without knowledge to 

 Knowledge) (1) there is science in whist ; (2) science tells, as 

 statistics show ; and (3) the scientific game is a game worth play- 

 ing, whereas the pure chance game of playing out winning cards 

 and leaving the adversary to make theirs is not worth the trouble 

 ot sitting down to. (Have I not played it .' And do I not know its 

 utter dreariness ? I have also in childhood's hours played " Beggar 

 my Neighbour,'' and I know not which game is the slowest.) Mr. 

 Ram reiterates his opinion that " play in whist is necessarily a mere 

 muddling along," and asks how often in chess bad play will 

 succeed against good play — comp.iring a subject of study with a 

 recreation. 



Mr. Ram's failure to understand how the very chances in the 

 game of whist add to its scientific character would show, if the 

 fact had not been already clearly indicated, that he has not yet 

 entered the charmed and charming circle about the mysteries 

 within which he nevertheless insists on speculating. 



Let me illustrate the matter by two examples— one telling of a 

 successful achievement of mine, in which chance played a part ; 

 the other of a bad mistake, for which I was deservedly punished : — 



1. The first case is the game described above. Here I adopted in 

 the first round a course which would certainly never have suggested 

 itself to a bumble-puppist, and I was guided thereto solely by a 

 consideration of the chances. I held an honour myself, and an 

 honour had fallen on my right ; the leader had either led (in all 

 probability) from five trumps or from four trumps two honours. In 

 the latter case the enemy would certainly go out in honours unless 

 we could make three by cards, and would count a double unless we 

 could make the dd trick. In the former case the leader still held 

 four trumps out of the nine whose position remained unknown, and 

 it was therefore more likely than not that of these nine cards the 

 two honours were in the hands of the enemy. As I had myself 

 great strength in plain suits, it was rather more likely than not 

 that A's lead was rather from great trump strength than from 

 combined strength in trumps and plain suits. For this reason I 

 passed the first trick, thereby showing my partner (a keen player) 

 that he must play as knowing I held great strength in plain suits, 

 for nothing else would explain my holding back the ace, which was 

 the trump card. The rest of the play, as above described, depended 

 throughout on the line I had thus adoptei. (My partner would 

 have discarded a spade to the third round of trumps but for my 

 declaration of strength— and a single spade thrown from his hand 

 would have meant the loss of the game to us.) 



2. The second case is one I am somewhat ashamed of ; but, 

 readers of these columns are entitled to the lesson it teaches. I 

 had got out all the trumps, including my own, and remained with 



