April 1, 1886.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



199 



coming it strong, considering tliat the fourth player will every other 

 time on an average take your partner's best card, and if j'our partner 

 holds the ace, it will generally be played without killing a good card 

 of the adversaries, and Pole calls this no disadvantage 1 Sow 

 Cavendish admits the danger of finding your partner very weak, or 

 of sacrificing what strength he has, but argues that, although your 

 chance of establishing a Five suit is slight, yet, by leading it, you 

 avoid assisting your adversary in establishing his long suit. This argu- 

 ment is weighty, and infinitely better than Pole's, but yet I submit 

 not strong enough to induce us to lead from a long weak suit of 5, 

 without an honour, when we have stronger suits, such as a suit of i 

 with 2 honours, or even when our other suits are weak, but one of 

 them contains a strong card which we can lead without harm to our- 

 selves, and with a very good chance of assisting our partner. 

 Although I do not regard even Clay as infallible, he is as near to it 

 as any whist writer is likely to be, and he says : — " A lead from a 

 Queen or Knave and one small card is not objectionable, if you have 

 a miserably weak hand, or one in which the lead from any of the 

 other suits is manifestly disadvantageous," and again : " A lead from 

 Queen Knave, and one small card or Knave Ten and one small card is 

 not bad when you have no better suit." Whilst on the point of the 

 advantage of leading strengthening cards, I would note that it has 

 struck me that Cavendish's and Pole's advocacy of invariably leading 

 from the longest suit is partly due to mistaken ideas of the effect of 

 leading strengthening cards. Cavendish, in his first edition, when 

 explaining the advantages of leading strengthening cards, added : — 

 " No doubt you are twice as likely to streagthen your adversaries, 

 but with a wretchedly weak hand this cannot be avoided," and Pole 

 says ; — " The effect of leading strengthening cards is to benefit the 

 hand that is longest in the suit," and adds that as it is two to one 

 that the longest hand is with one of the adversaries, the chances are 

 that you favour the opponents' hands, so that, according to Pole, if 

 I lead a Queen and my partner holds King Knave Ten and one other 

 and either adversary the Ace and four others, my lead of the Queen 

 has beneiited the adversary, and not my partner. Cavendish has 

 omitted this absurdity in his later editions, but is it not possible 

 that the feeling which permitted him to say it still somewhat 

 warps his judgment ? 



Further, if it be objectionable, as above argued, to lead from a 

 weak suit of five, much worse is it to lead from a weak suit of four, 

 for you equally incur the risk of sacrificing your partner's good cards 

 without the possibility of remaining with two or three long cards of 

 the suit, and with less chance of remaining with even one long one. 

 For these reasons, holding Knave or Ten with one other, I should 

 prefer (as I believe do nearly all our best players) to lead it rather 

 than lead a small card from Knave or Ten with three small ones. 

 One feels that the lead from the latter suit may sacrifice one's part- 

 ner's King or Queen without any benefit to oneself or partner. The 

 lead from King or Queen and three small ones is not so objection- 

 able ; but I certainly should myself always prefer leading Knave 

 from Knave, Ten, and another, to opening a suit of King and three 

 others, unless the highest of the three was a Knave, Ten, or Nine. 

 The objection that the lead of the Knave may be mistaken for a lead 

 from strength may be disregarded, for it will be but rarely that 

 your partner will not be able, even on the first round, to infer 

 whether your Knave is a strengthening card or not ; and, if he cannot 

 be sure, he will, if a good player, not jump to the conclusion that it 

 is a lead from strength. 



For the above reasons, I contend that an inUexible rule of leading 

 from the longest suit cannot be a good one, and that the only excuse 

 for leading from a long weak suit, when there is no hope of making 

 long cards in it, is that to open any other would be equally dis- 

 advantageous to your partner, and probably more advantageous to 

 your adversaries, and that this can never be said when you can lead 

 a strengthening card from one or two others. 



It will perhaps be contended that I am ignoring the advantage of 

 the information given by a rigid adherence to the rule of opening 

 the longest suit. I have, however, taken this into consideration. 

 Even assuming that the balance of advantage of the information 

 S3 given rests with yourself and partner, I think it very dearly pur- 

 chased when the price paid is the sacrifice of your partner's good 

 cards. Further, I find in actual play that the knowledge that an 

 adversary has a number of small plain cards is one of the most 

 useful data in judging whether to lead trumps or not ; and I hold 

 that to play badly merely to give information is, except in very rare 

 instances, downright irrational, and to sacrifice the good cards of 

 one partner, so that other partners may be assured that you have 

 four at least in yovir original lead, is hardly fair to your partner for 

 the time being; consequently I protest against the advice too often 

 given to young players to play for some time by fixed rules, " in 

 order to earn a character." What right has any one to play any 

 hand otherwise than appears to him most beneficial, in order that he 

 may get a benefit to himself at the expense of his partner ? But, 



over and beyond this, I consider all attempts to tie the hands of 

 whist-players and to put an end to individual judgment by rigid 

 rules of play most objectionable in principle, and that no player 

 who is admitted by his brother-players to be skilful above the 

 average should submit to be so tied, at any rate not unless he knows 

 that the person who wants to bind him is quite at the top of the 

 tree ; for, notwithstanding Pole's assertion that the dicta of Clay 

 owe their chief value to the fact that they admit of being demon- 

 strated by philosophical reasoning, I have more respect for the dicta 

 of Clay and other fine players, as pure dicta, than I have for all the 

 so-called philosophical, but in some cases downright illogical, reasons 

 stated by Pole. 



I propose in the next part to insert some hands submitted to a 

 number of our best players for their opinions on the original lead 

 and to state the results.* 



HANDS ARRANGED BY " MOGUL." 



What card should first player lead from above hands — first, when 

 the score is love all ; and secondly, when the score is four love ? 



These hands are not intended to be difficult, but solely to test how 

 far plaj'ers of admitted skill feel themselves bound to lead from 

 their longest suit, rather than exercise their individual judgment as 

 to the best card to lead from each hand as it arises. They are there- 

 fore asked. What card they would themselves lead ? not which one 

 they would advise a beginner to lead. 



#iir CftfSS Column. 



By " ilEPUiSTO." 



The following is the eleventh game of the match for the cham- 

 pionship, played at New Orleans on March 1 : — 

 Four Knights Gamk. 



White resigned on his forty-second move. 

 X'OTES. 



{a) Leading to an even game. Played by Gunsberg against 

 Eanken in the 83 Tournament. 



(i) This points to an attack on the K's side, the prospects of which 

 cannot be considered favourable. Wliite might have played 

 lOB to B4. 



(c) An excellent move, wliioh gives Black the advantage — he 

 threatens Q to K4, also to bring his QB into play. 



(rf) Steinitz himself adopted somewhat similar tactics in his sixth 

 game. It seems that in the present instance this QP can be taken. 



■* These hands I venture to publish here, as it will, I think, add 

 greatly to the readers' interest in " Mogul's " second paper to have 

 had the opportunity of studying the hands first by himself. — Ed. 



