42 



• KNOWLEDGE • 



[Nov. 11, 1881. 



(Bnv Wfyi^t Column. 



By "Five of Clubs." 



INTROIIICTIOX. 

 "»'V7"1IIST, properly played, is the finest of all card Ramos, 



VV perhaps — not oven excepting chess — tlio finest of all 

 sedentary gnmcs. But Whist, ns it is often played, without any 

 knowledftc or appreciation of the real nature of the pame, seems to 

 have nothing making it better worth playing than Po|)0 Joan or 

 Casino, and to bo decidedly inferior to Euchre. There is an inter- 

 mediate kind of whist, tho game played by persons who have a 

 keen perception of tho strategy- of the game, hut no knowledge of 

 its language, which may be full of interest or full of annoyance, as 

 the cards may happen to lie. To watch a proficient in this kind of 

 whist, playing n good hand, and ably supported by a steady -going 

 partner who understands his ways, one would say Whist was the 

 most delightful of all games ; but to see him playing an average 

 hand, and to note his wrath when his partner, considering his own 

 hand, fails to play precisely .-is he wishes, one would say Whist was 

 a rather severe form of punishment. 



The present series of papers on Wliist, and tho problems, games, 

 &c., which will accompany and follow it, are intended to indicate 

 the nature of the only game of Wliist which is worth playing — 

 Wliist as a game between two forces, two pairs of partners, each 

 pair having Ijetween them twenty-six cards. Tho game thus jilayed, 

 that is with constant reference by each player to the fact that he 

 has a partner, may be regarded as a really scientific game. It is 

 often called the book game, theoretical play, and by other names, 

 implying that a fine player need care very little about it. But it is, 

 in truth,'the only common-sense, practically-sound form of the game, 

 and no one can be regarded as a really good, still less as a fine, 

 player who does not play it. It has, moreover, the additional 

 advantage of being readily learned by those who have not 

 the capacity for really great play ; and when it lias been learned, 

 such players, though never brilliant, become good and safe partners. 

 Moreover, by learning the rules of scientific ttTiist, which seem at 

 first an extra ti'ouble to the memory, the learner finds that his 

 power of remembering the fall of the cards is greatly increased. 

 It is, indeed, the purjioseless nature of ordinary unscientific Whist 

 play which makes it so difficult for the bad player to remember 

 what cards have been played, and by whom. So soon as he has 

 adopted just princijiles of play, each hand is played according to a 

 plan, tho development of which is full of interest, so that the stages 

 are easily remembered. Each card is played with a purpose, and 

 whether tlie purpose succeeds or fails, the result is noted and re- 

 membered, whereas when there is no purpose, the memory has no 

 such aid. 



Tho first great principle of the scientific game of Wliist is to give 

 your partner (always at the beginning, and almost always thi'ougli- 

 ont the play of the hand), all the information in your power within 

 the rules of the game- (There arise cases occasionally towards the 

 end of a hand where it becomes clear that the partner can do 

 nothing, and nothing can be lost by misleading him ; then, and then 

 only, false cards, deceiving him, but deceiving the adversaries also, 

 may be usefully played.) To this the objection is repeatedly made — 

 especially by brilliant one-handed players — "a player has but one 

 partner while he has two adversaries, and by playing so as to 

 give information to one friend, he gives information to two enemies, 

 or the harm exceeds the good two-fold." The true answer to this 

 objection does not seem to me to have been recognised by Pole, 

 Cavendish, Clay, and other great masters of the game, who have 

 yet, of course, known perfectly well from practice that it is advan- 

 tageous to give to your partner all the information in your power. 

 Cavendish says the objection would have considerable force if you 

 were compelled to expose tho whole of your hand, but you possess 

 the power of selecting what facts shall be annonnoed and what 

 concealed. Pole says tho objection " involves a confusion in 

 reasoning ; for if the opponents are equally good players, they will 

 adopt the same system, and the positions must bo equal ; and if 

 thoy are not good players, they will be incapable of profiting by the 

 indications you give, and the whole ailvantage will rest with you; 

 adding that " oven good players seldom pay so much heed to their 

 opponents' as to their jiartners' indications." Pole and Drayson 



agree in saying that by not giving your partner information, you 



mn the risk of having to fight three ojiponents single-handed. Clay 

 does not specifically consider the objection. 



The true answer seems to me to be different from any of these. 

 The reply of " Cavendish " implies that there is a limit to the prin- 

 ciple that it is more important to inform your partner than to 



deceive your adversaries. Pole's reply takes the system for granted, 

 by assuming that good opponents will follow it ; and certainly he 



does not reason sonndly in suggesting that even good ojiponenta pay 

 less attention to their opponents' than to their partner's indications. 

 It is also an exaggeration to sfioak of a partner as becoming a third 

 opponent if not duly informe<l as to your cards : he may take ono 

 or two of yonr winning cards, but cannot play as an opponent 

 throughout the hand, as tliey seem to imply. (Tlio mischief is bad 

 enough, without exaggeration.) Tho real re<ison why informa- 

 tion to yonr partner is so important as to outweigh the knowledge 

 given to the adversarj', is that it is only by giving him information 

 that your cards can be combined with liia in the strategy of the 

 hand. You tell him points about yonr hand which he can utilise, let 

 tho opponents do what they will, althongli, of course, yon may also 

 give him information which he cannot utilise, whether because 

 the adversaries have also learned it. or not. Cases of tho latter 

 kind count neither one way nor the other ; if you had not suggested 

 such and such a plan, he would not have tried it, and when yoa have 

 told him ho has not succeeded, bo that you aro none tho worse ; 

 all the cases of the former kind are so much clear gain. 



Take a familiar instance. I lead ace, and follow with qncen 

 of mj- best suit. 5Iy partner ];nov:s that I have the knave and 

 a small card left. Suppose he has the king',in his own hand 

 and a small one left after the first ronnd. Jiow according to the 

 state of the score and of his own hand, it may be better to let the 

 trick fall to my qncen, or to take it with his king, leaving me still 

 tho command of the suit with my kuave. By my play, showing 

 that I have the knave, I have left it open to him to do whichsoever 

 of these two things may be best for both of us, and tliis choice he 

 has, let tho opponents act as they please. But suppose that, in- 

 stead of following the recognised line of play for such cards, 1 lead 

 the second round with my small card. My partner plays his king, 

 and, let us sujipose, wins the trick. He cannot now play as he 

 would (as it might be absolutely essential to success that he shotUd) 

 if he knew that I had the command of the suit. On the contrary, 

 so far as he can understand me at all, he thinks 1 have three small 

 cards of the suit left, and that the queen lies with one of the adver- 

 saries. His consequent Jilay in this case spoils our common game, 

 whereas in the other case his play advances our common game. 

 In either case it is hi:^ play, not the opponents', which affects our 

 combined game for good or for ill. 



In line, instead of the maxim, " It is more useful to inform your 

 partner than to deceive yonr adversary," I woidd substitute this — 

 " Tour single partner can do more good than both yonr adversaries 

 can do harm by utilising information you may give by your play." 

 (Good here includes the avoidance of harm ; we might supple- 

 ment the rule by saying that your partner is likely to do much more 

 mischief througli ignorance of your hand, than could be counter- 

 poised by any good which the adversaries might chance to do you.) 



It is the recognition by good players of this first rule, as resulting 

 from the general principle that partners should play in harmony 

 and with a common purpose, which has led to the system of modem 

 wliist strategy. There ai-e commonly more ways than one in which, 

 if the partner's cards were seen, the qualities of the combined hands 

 might be used ; but there is only one system by which, in the actual 

 method of play, your partner can work in harmony with you. That 

 system being adopted, the principles guiding us in the opening of a 

 hand, and determining the play of first, second, third, and fourth 

 player, are deduced at once. Our books of whist seem, indeed (and 

 ii has always seemed to me a f.anlt in them), to require that the 

 learner should know multitudinous rules for leading, and for playing 

 second, third, and foiu'th ; but in reality all these rules depend on 

 one general principle. I do not say that the player ought at once 

 to know, from his knowledge of this principle, his proper course aa 

 leader, second, third, or fourth player. He has not time to go 

 through all the con.siderations involved in applying it to particular 

 cases. He must be content, therefore, to retain a number of rules 

 for such cases in his memory. But his memory %vill be greatly 

 helped, and tho number of rules will be greatly diminished, when 

 he recognises the general principle on which modern whist-play 

 proceeds. 



In my next I shall show what this general principle is, why it 

 has been selected in preference to others, wliioh, at first ^-iew, 

 seem to have great, if not equal advantages. Afterwards we shall 

 consider how this principle suggests the various leads, the play 

 of second, third, and fourth hand, ic, endeavouring so to treat 

 the matter that the memory may be as much as possible helped 

 to retain the resulting rules, by recognising the string on which 

 these seemingly scattered beads of Whist wisdom are in reality 

 strung. 



I may in the next number present a game actually pl.iyed, 

 mentioning the inferences which a player of the systematic game 

 would make at once. Tliose who follow our explanation of the 

 system will jiresently sec that these inferences are not, as they 

 might Suppose, recondite, but perfectly obvious, even after a very 

 moderate study of the modern system of Whist play. 



