September 1, 1887.] 



♦ KNOW^LKDGE ♦ 



263 



■\VnrTE. Buck. 



23. K to KKtsq B to B3 



24. R to Kt3 Kt to Q I 



25. QR to KKtsq R to KB3 

 BtoRfi KtoRsj 

 QtoKl2 P to B6 



(R to Ksq seemed pre- 

 ferable.) 

 PxP RxP 



29. Kt^to Kt5 B X Kt 



(If R to K2 White may 

 plaj- Kt to KCi.) 



30. R X B R to B2 



31. Q to Kt3 P to B.5 



32. Q to R4 P to Kt3 



26. 

 97 



28. 



33. 



34. 

 35. 

 36. 

 37. 

 3S. 



38. 

 39. 

 40. 



' 41. 



WiirrE. Black. 



P to K4 Kt to K6 



(Kt to K2 was better.) 



R X KtP ! 

 B X P (ch) 

 B to K5 1 

 Q to R6 ! 

 QxKt 

 (.Ml very 

 R to R2 

 Q5.) 



P to Q.5 

 BxR 



PxR 



K to Ktsq 

 R to Kt2 

 R to B3 



fine play ; 

 then 39. P 



Q to KB2 

 R toB7 

 QxB 



Q to Bt and White won. 



Position resulting out oE a Sicilian defence plaj-ed at Frank- 

 furt :— 



GOTTSCHALL. 



■#/; M 



WM'- ••• 



v/tSHiyA -^/^A^_ ^ 



The game terminated as follows : — 



Wh.tr. Black. 



R to R3 P to Kt5 



Kt to Q.i P to K3 



P to B.5 P X Kt 



P to B6 B to Rsq 



B to Q4 B to Q2 



R to R4 P to R4 



(If Kt X B White wins by Q to R6.) 



RxP B to Kto 

 R X B (ch) and wins. 



By "Five of Clobs." 



THE DISCARD I\ ITS SUIT-DIRECTIVE ASPECT.* 



N' three letters contributed to recent numbers of The 

 Field, General Drayson dealt with the "suit- 

 directive" aspect of the question of the discard, with 

 the apparent object of contributing his quota to the 

 modern industry of importing the greatest possible 

 number of cut-and-dried rules into the practice of 

 the game of whist. He considers four cases, of which 

 two are general and two are particular. In sum- 

 marising the conditions which he discusses, we shall 



assume, once for all, that A and B are partners against T and Z ; 



that A is always the elder hand ; and that the lead tirst described is 



the original lead of the game. His four cases, then, are as 



follow: — 



1. (General.)— A leads trumps. Z wins, and returns the trump; 

 T is obliged to discard. Ought Y's discard to be from his strong or 

 from his weak suit ? 



2. (General.)— A leads trumps. Z wins and returns the trump. 



* From the Aitstralaiian. 



B is obliged to discard. Ought B to discard from his strong or 

 from liis weak suit ? 



3. (Particular.) — X leads trumps (say clubs), and the trumps are 

 evidently with i' and Z. Y holds spade 8, 7, 5, 4, 3 ; diamond A, 

 Kg; club !1, 6; heart, 9, 8, 3, 2. On the third round of clubs Y 

 must discard. Which card ought he to throw away ? 



4. (Particular.) — \ leads trumps (say clubs), and trumps are 

 declared against Y and Z. y holds spade A, Kg, Q ; club 7, G ; 

 diamond A, Kg Q ; heart 7, 6, 5, 4, 3. On the third round of trumps 

 Y must discard. Which card ought he to throw away ? 



To his general questions General Drayson replies that, in the first 

 case, Z has returned A's adverse trump lead. Hence trumps are 

 not declared against the co-partnership of Y and Z. 'J'herefore \' 

 ought to discard from his weak suit. But, in the second case, Z 

 has returned A's trump lead up to B"s weakness in trumps. There- 

 fore A is placed in the position of having to fight single-handed 

 against the combined trump strength of the adverse co-partnership. 

 Therefore B ought to discard from his strong suit. These sentences 

 do not give the exact terms in which General Drayson formulates 

 the principles by which he regulates his practice; but they convey 

 a clear idea as to the liard-and-fast sj'stem wliich he wishes to 

 estabhsh in order to minimise the trouble of thinking about the 

 varying conditions of play as they arise. In its broader aspect, of 

 course, we do not object to General Drayson's idea. For there can 

 be no doubt that it is desirable to lay down general principles by 

 which to regulate the protective discard. But for all practical pur- 

 poses the rule given by Mathews at the beginning of the century is 

 amply sufficient : — " It weak in trumps, keep guard on your ad- 

 versaries' suits ; if strong, throw away from them." Besirles, from 

 the terms in which General Drayson writes, it is pretty plain that 

 he is one of the very numerous believers in the fallacy that under 

 all circumstances length of plain suit means strength. It cannot 

 be too often repeated, however, that in themselves five or si.x minor 

 cards of a plain suit are an element of weakness, and that the con- 

 version of such weakness into strength requires (1) that the holder 

 should have opportunities of clearing the suit, and (2) that he or his 

 partner should either be protected in trumps or else that one of 

 them should have either the command of the adversaries' plain 

 suits or at least the power of obstructing their establishment. 



With regard to the first of General Drayson's particular cases, it 

 is clear that to the third round of trumps Y cannot discard either 

 his ace or his king of diamonds. He must evidently throw away 

 either one of his five minor spades or one of his four minor hearts ; 

 and probably, in the majority of cases, his best course would be to 

 part with a spade —the chance of ultimately making the nine of 

 hearts being somewhat better than the chance of ultimatel.v making 

 the eight of spades. In General Drayson's fourth case tliere can be 

 no room for doubt at aU. Y must throw away one of his small 

 hearts, retaining the complete command of diamonds and of spades; 

 for his cards in both those suits are good of themselves against 

 anything but trumps, while his small hearts are valueless so long as 

 higher hearts are held by the other players. Since tricks are to be 

 made, what can it matter whether the making of one of them be 

 the prompt work of the diamond ace or the deferred privilege of 

 the heart seven ? 



General Drayson does not think it necessary to supply any 

 answers to his own questions. But he proceeds to remark that 

 he has met several whist-players who claim that, in dealing with 

 the difficulty of the protective discard, the only thing to be borne 

 in mind is whether the original trump lead was by partner or 

 by adversaries. He gives the following illustration : — Being Y, 

 he held spades, 3 small ; diamonds, 2 small ; club A, Kg, Q, 3, 2 ; 

 and hearts (trumps), 3 small. Nothing is said about the score. 

 The play was that A led tierce major in trumps, and that B 

 failed on the third round. Then A led the king of spades, 

 which Z won with the ace. Next Z led the knave of hearts, to 

 which Y discarded a diamond. Whereupon Z led a diamond, find- 

 ing the complete command both of spades and of diamonds with 

 his adversaries; the ultimate result being that Y made only one 

 trick in clubs. General Drayson maintains, and rightly maintains, 

 that under tlie circumstances stated, Z ought not to have led a 

 diamond. It is clear that Z not only had a very bad hand, but also 

 that he knew that the strength of the spade suit lay against him. 

 Under such circumstances his play in drawing A's losing trump was 

 very much of a leap in the dark. Its only justification would liave 

 been that, being obliged to rely for defence on Y's hand, he played 

 the winning trump in order to ascertain Y's strong suit by inviting 

 him to throw away a losing card at a time when the command of 

 trumps wa.s in his favour. No wooden-headed rules — "apt for 

 blockheads,'' as " Mogul " said the other day — would have sufficed 

 to supply such a player as Z with the sense (in which General 

 Drayson shows him to be quite deficient) of the importance of 

 noting the time at which, ami the circumstances under which, Y''was 



