84 



♦ KNOW^LEDGE 



[Nov. 1, 1885. 



the priucipal reason of its being adopted was that the inferior 

 players, always constituting a majority, would only be too glad to 

 adopt anything which they could apparently use as well as the most 

 gifted player. The worse the player, the less he understands or cares 

 for the science of the game, .ind the more he regards it merely as a 

 game of chance: but real lovers of the game want to preserve in it 

 intact its power to interest us by making us reason, just as a 

 mathematician enjoys solving a difficult problem, and hates to have 

 the solution shown to him. These signals, however, deprive us of 

 this interest by solving for us some of the most interesting 

 problems that arise in the course of play: e.g., one of them tells us 

 when our partner wants trumps to be led, and another tells us very 

 distinctly when we may, without risk, get rid of the highest card in 

 order to unblock our partner's suit, and the very fact that it does so, 

 is considered by its inventor and introducer as its great merit ; for 

 does not Cavendish, the arch-inventor of signals, after starting 

 with the observation that "it has hitherto been left to the ingenuity 

 of individuals to decide when and how to unblock their partners' 

 suit," tell us that he has invented a signal, "the plain suit echo," 

 to systemati,-;e the play to unblock ? and thus, of course, put an end 

 to all ingenuitj- in the process. Cavendish's views on signals may, 

 I believe, be accurately stated as follows : " It is desirable to give 

 your partner as much information as possible of the state of your 

 hand: this or that mode of play can be utilised to give certain 

 information. The idea is a good one, I will publish it in the Field, 

 reissue the matter in a pamphlet, and then incorporate it in my 

 treatise, which at present is a standard work; and if, after that, I 

 can but get a few others to play it with me, we shall get such a pull 

 by means of the information conveyed over tliose who will not play 

 it, that they must follow I " At any rate, if this does not pass 

 through his mind, it is the true history of one or two of the signals. 

 Not one word can be found in any of his arguments that signals 

 improve the game; but to everyone who regards the game as a 

 recreation, and not as a profession, this is the real question at issue, 

 and the one on which I now propose to dilate. 



I will assume for the purposes of argument, as is contended for 

 so strongly bj- those who practise them, that signals give players 

 who use them, an advantage over those who do not. Cavendish, in 

 one place, calls the advantage " enormous ; " but, as this advantage 

 ceases as soon as all players use them, it can be no valid reason for 

 adopting or inventing signals. The only reason for tlieir introduc- 

 tion that I can think of is, that the conflict between rational and 

 artificial play which tliey necessarily cause, as well as the additional 

 information which they give, make the game more intricate and 

 difficult, and thus give professors of it an increased (and, as I think, 

 undue) advantage over amateurs; or, as Cavendish more delicately 

 puts it : " No doubt moderate players may lack the quick perception 

 which would enable them to take advantage of the American rules. 

 This is no reason why better players should be deprived of that 

 advantage !! " Certainly not, if the better players only played with 

 their equals, or if tliey never played for money \\-ith the moderate 

 ones : but some of us, at any rate, will think that after this 

 Cavendish and the other better players who, not satisfied with 

 natural advantages over moderate players, invent or practise arti- 

 ficial leads which increase these advantages, shotdd, in fairness, 

 give moderate players odds; and I shall wait with curiosity to hear 

 if they do. They are making it a case of professionals rcrsns 

 amateurs. We are thus reduced to this proposition, that the adop- 

 tion of signals either gives no advantage to one player over another, 

 or an unfair advantage to the better players ; if the latter, they 

 ought to be avoided without further argument, and, it the former, 

 there is no reason for introducing them. The game is a splendid 

 game without them, and why not leave well alone? 



One of the fairest and best tests whether signals improve the 

 game or not, is to suppose that the construction of the game were 

 so altered as to permit partners to give information (the sole 

 object of signals) by showing to the table such cards as they chose, 

 and this is just what Cavendish says he would like to do. Just con- 

 sider how tliis most perfect way of giving information would largely 

 deprive players of the opportunities of e.xercising their judgment 

 or ingenuity. A and B being partners ; A showing B King, Queen, 

 and three small clubs; B would at once show Ace and a small one 

 of the same suit, so that A might know that he could safely start 

 with a small one. Again, A leading a suit, and remaining after one 

 round with the second and third best and others, would show 

 them, so tliat B, if he held the best, might get out of his way ; 

 whereupon B, it he had the best or fourth best, would at once show 

 it to save .\ wasting one of his two good ones, and so on. Xow 

 would this be an improvement on Whist as it is ? I think most 

 decidedly not. 



At present Whist is a pleasant recreation, whilst Double Dummy 

 and Chess are hard work, and the suggested alteration would 

 assimilate Whist to Double Dummy and make that a toil which is 

 intended for pjleasure ; in this view I am not peculiar, for even 

 F. H. Lewis, notwithstanding a deplorable readiness to adopt 

 signals, says " the present tendency of Whist is to approximate the 



game more closely to Chess, by which Whist will lose not only its 

 individual, but also its special educational character, and by which, 

 as a game of relaxation, it will soon be a game of the past. ' This 

 being the case, is it not the duty of every lover of Whist to resist 

 to the utmost the introduction of new .signals 1 and I am hoping 

 that F. H. Lewis is taking his own w'ords to heart, for I know 

 that up to a very recent date he had not adopted the American 

 leads. I could point out other ways in which signals spoil the play 

 by diverting attention from more important points by making play 

 slower and more laborious, and by inducing more fault-iinding, for 

 the more information is given the, less scope there is for individual 

 judgment (at D. Dummy no judgment can be exercised — the play is 

 demonstrably right or wrong) and consequently the better player 

 can more frequently prove, as a matter of fact, that the play of a 

 particular card was wrong, and hence more wrangling and un- 

 pleasantness. 



How much to be avoided some of the signals are, may be inferred 

 from Cavendish's last treatise " Whist Developments," in which he 

 explains what he calls the necessary drill for playing the American 

 leads and the " plain suit echo." A system which requires players to 

 go through the drudgery of reading such an inexpressibly dreary 

 work, cannot be based on reason, nor be an improvement on the 

 game ; Cavendish really does try the staunchness of his followers in 

 expecting them to read such a work. Its effect will, I hope and 

 expect, be to seriously thin their ranks. 



The two old signals of the call for trumps, and the return to a 

 partner's lead, are doubtless too firmly established to be now 

 ignored, but if the rising generation of players resolutely oppose the 

 adoption of new signals, and give more thought to the special 

 character of Whist, it may be hoped that these two will gradually fall 

 into disuse, and that really scientific Whist based, and based only 

 on rational deduction, will resume its sway, and instruct and amuse 

 in the future even more generations of Englishmen than it has in 

 the past. 



lUffiit Jnbrntions, 



[ II pi/ii'P Iierc a hrief <!rscrij>tiim of sttch of the iiiantj receni inven- 

 tions as n-e think may he of iise to our readers. Where it is possible 

 the number of the patent is quoted to enable those n'ho desire fuller 

 informatioti to procure the specification from the Patent Ofiiee in 

 Cursitor-street, Chancery ■lane.'] 



ELECTRO-MECHANICAL CLOCK. 



This invention, by Mr. Chester H. Pond, of the United States, is 

 of an extremely simple nature, and one which promises to prove of 

 great service to all sections of the community. Heavy springs or 

 weights and cumbrous gearing are essential in the ordinary clock, 

 because it has no automatic action, but must store its power for a 

 long period. The tension varies from a maximum — when the clock 

 is wound — to a minimum, when it must be wound again. This 

 gives a more or less irregular action to the mechanism of the clock, 

 and the stress of the springs or weights wears the pinions and 

 bearings, throws the parts out of adjustment, renders a correct time 

 impossible, and necessitates frequent repairs. 



The electro-mechanical clock is an ingenious piece of mechanism, 

 that winds itself automatically, and maintains a continuous action 

 from year to year. It requires a small spring, but little larger than 

 the mainspring of a watch, which is kept at a uniform tension, and 

 acts directly on the hour-wheel, and not through a system of gear- 

 wheels essential in the ordinarj' clock. This spring is wound in six 

 seconds, and offers no interruption to the time while winding. It is 

 kept only at a tension sufficient to run the clock one hour. It is 

 then wound again by means of a small rotary electric motor, which 

 is connected with the mechanism in a manner that gives to the 

 clock a most symmetrical appearance. The electrical resistance of 

 the coils on the motor is about five ohms. To drive it, an ordinary 

 Leclanchfi cell, such as is used for electric bells, is employed. It is 

 generally concealed in the frame or case of the clock, and is capable 

 of furnishing the necessary current to wind the clock two years 

 without attention. The hour-wheel, each hour of its revolution, 

 switches the electric current through the motor, which rapidly re- 

 volves for six seconds, and communicates its rotary motion, by ;i 

 gear-W'heel, to the bai-rel on the centre arbor containing the spring. 

 This barrel (in one revolution) imparts sufficient tension to the spring 

 to run the clock one hour, stops the motor by breaking the electric cur- 

 rent, and the battery rests for an hour, or until it is necessary to 

 wind the clock again. This process is thus automatic and continuous, 

 and the battery is used only six seconds each hour, or less than 

 fifteen hours in a year. By this ingenious application of electricity 

 the inventor has discarded the heavy springs and weights, and, 

 therefore, the gearing necessary to transmit their power. He has 



