diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/54145-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/54145-0.txt | 1875 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1875 deletions
diff --git a/old/54145-0.txt b/old/54145-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 57de3f9..0000000 --- a/old/54145-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1875 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Decline and Fall of Whist, by John Petch -Hewby - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Decline and Fall of Whist - An Old Fashioned View of New Fangled Play - - -Author: John Petch Hewby - - - -Release Date: February 10, 2017 [eBook #54145] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DECLINE AND FALL OF WHIST*** - - -E-text prepared by Emmy, MFR, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team -(http://www.pgdp.net) from page images digitized by the Google Books -Library Project (http://books.google.com) and generously made available by -Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/declineandfallw00hewbgoog - - - - - -THE DECLINE AND FALL OF WHIST - -An Old Fashioned View of New Fangled Play - -by - -THE AUTHOR -OF “WHIST OR BUMBLEPUPPY” - - - - - - -London -G. E. Waters 97 Westbourne Grove -Simpkin Marshall & Co. Stationers’ Hall Court -1884 - - - - - -CONTENTS. - - -[2] - Page - Introductory 7 - - Wooden Arrangement, No. 1— - The Signal and the Echo 9 - - Wooden Arrangement, No. 2— - Tampering with the Discard 12 - - The Modern Game 19 - - Wooden Arrangement, No. 3— - Original Lead of the Longest Suit 20 - - Wooden Arrangement, No. 4— - The Lead of the Penultimate and its Congeners 25 - - Some Pillars of the Modern Edifice— - Pillar No. 1—The Philosophy of Whist 33 - Pillar No. 2—Illustrative Whist Hands 41 - Pillar No. 3—Developments, Generalizations, - and Extensions of Principle 47 - - Whittling at the Small End of Nothing 52 - - A Whist Player’s Wail 56 - - Arithmetic Applied to Whist by a Small Boy 70 - - Conclusion 73 - - - - - -PREFACE. - - -AS it has been taken for granted, because no abhorrence of the recent -proceedings of the New Academy has been openly expressed, such feeling -is non-existent, this opuscule has been written in the confident belief -that it expresses the opinions of a majority of civilized Whist-players. - -LONDON, _Christmas, 1884_. - - - - -THE DECLINE AND FALL OF WHIST. - - -IF we only live long enough we all pass through at least three -stages—one authority says seven;—we grow, we attain our prime, we -decay; and Whist, apparently, is not exempt from the common lot. - -Somewhat obscure in its origin, it gradually developed, it arrived -at its zenith, then began to go down hill, and became the piteous -spectacle we now see, until, flying from the whist-room as from a -pest-house, the players are betaking themselves in shoals to other and -unholy games. - -There is an opinion that Whist is at the present moment so exceedingly -popular that it is fast becoming a serious rival to afternoon tea, and -this, so far from being inconsistent with my original statement, rather -strengthens it; for it is quite possible that a certain percentage of -the more reputable refugees from the clubs, averse to gambling, may -have sought—and I hope I may add, found—consolation in the family bosom -and the domestic rubber. - -The golden age of Whist lasted from the time when Cavendish arranged -in a systematic form his selections from the wisdom of our ancestors, -until the death of Mr. Clay, twelve years ago; then the age of wood -began, and if the whole subsequent literature of Whist had been -publicly burnt by the common hangman, including _nostri farrago -libelli_, it would have been an unmixed boon; so greatly has the evil -preponderated over the good. - - - - -WOODEN ARRANGEMENT, NO. 1.—THE PETER. - - -THE peter, simple in its inception, and ineffably stupid in execution, -was already on the scene, and though among decent players it soon found -its level, and became comparatively inoffensive, was the pioneer of the -mass of wood-paving which has since been laid down; echoes, tampering -with the discard, penultimates, antepenultimates, developments, -extensions of principle, rules for exceptional play, with a few other -matters _quod nunc perscribere longum est_, all equally inelastic, but -differing from the signal in this, that while its mission is to supply -your partner with brains and to dictate to him, regardless of the state -of his hand, to play trumps when you think fit, theirs is to do away -with all necessity for any brains whatever. - -The call for trumps appeared in this form, and in this form -Bumblepuppydom believes in it to this day. “Whenever a player is -strong in trumps, whether he has any reason for wanting them out or -not, he informs the table of the fact, and it is imperative upon his -partner to take the most violent and extraordinary steps to get in and -lead him one.” However, the proceeding—when not useless—turned out so -injurious to the perpetrator, that it had to be mitigated (for in that -benighted day it had not been discovered that it was philosophical -to lose on principle), and now reads something like this,—“whenever -a player is strong in trumps, and considers from the fall of the -cards that it is expedient they should be drawn, he makes those facts -public,” and as his partner is usually in possession of the lead at the -moment, he is able to play a trump without unduly straining himself. - -Compulsory peters, anticipated peters, and peters late in the hand, are -matters of common sense and intelligence, and attempts to lay down -arbitrary conventions as substitutes for those qualities are the main -causes of the present decadence of Whist. - - -THE ECHO. - -THE echo is reported to be an extension of the signal, and is the most -innocuous of the series; it does very little harm, and always amuses -somebody. - -When the signal-man holds half the trumps and the echoer the remainder, -it amuses them and does not hurt the adversary; for weight will tell, -wholly irrespective of conventions. - -When there is a possibility of saving the game, and it comes into -play before the hand is over, which it seldom does, its usual effect -is to induce the signal-man (seeing his partner drop a high card) to -endeavour unsuccessfully to force him; then they suffer grief and pain, -and the adversary in his turn is amused. - - - - -WOODEN ARRANGEMENT, NO. 2. - - -THIS resulted from tampering with the discard. Though Mathews (_circa_ -A.D. 1800) in two short sentences laid down the true and only principle -of discarding: “If weak in trumps, keep guard on your adversaries’ -suits; if strong, throw away from them,” fifty years afterwards it was -discovered by the “little school” that “the old system of discarding -was just this—when not able to follow suit, let your first discard be -from your weakest suit.” Rough on poor Mathews! but the absent are -always wrong. - -However, by a process of evolution, to the first step of which no -exception can be taken, we are next told—(_a_) “When you see from the -fall of the cards that there is no probability of bringing in your own -or your partner’s long suit discard originally from your best protected -suit.” “You must play a defensive game.”—_Cavendish._ - -Then, as the evolution proceeds, and we come to (_b_), we catch the -first glimpse of the woody fibre, “for the sake of a short and easily -remembered rule,” it is the fashion to say, “discard originally from -your strong suit when the adversaries lead trumps, but this aphorism -does not truly express the conditions.” (It does not indeed; far from -it! for the adversaries may lead trumps and the strength may turn out -on the other side; and why, under any circumstances, currency should -be given to an erroneous fashion is a question I have repeatedly asked -in vain), and here the pupils rush in, with that zeal which outruns -discretion, overpower the master and cut the Gordian Knot with (_c_) -_strongest_. Fourthly, I am informed whenever I take my walks abroad in -Whist circles, (_d_) that with trumps declared against me I must not -only discard from my strongest suit, but by that discard point out to -my partner—and I presume my adversaries—the suit I wish led, and we -are all on our backs on the wood pavement. - -Is this a defensive game? Surely it is pedantry run mad! Why am I, in -these frightful circumstances, fighting for dear life, and breathing -with the greatest difficulty, to disclose my vital parts to a powerful -and remorseless enemy? Where am I to get a suit from that I wish led? -Why am I to be debarred from using my common sense—if I have any—and -holding on to everything in obedience to my old friend Mathews and -Cavendish on Whist, for both of whom I have the highest respect? If -by good luck I do hold a very strong suit, I used to be able to point -out that fact by discarding the head of it; now I am told “you must -not do that; it is not _the game_”—whatever the game may be; “it shows -the adversary too much;” so that I am in this absurd dilemma—if I -have a really strong suit, I am to keep it dark; if I have a suit in -which I hope to make a trick by remaining very quiet, I am to invite -my partner to put me under the harrow by making me third player. _O -tempora! O mores!_ - -Bad in itself, and ensnaring to others, this outrageous latter-day -discard is cowardly to a degree; for while it does no particular injury -to the player with a strong hand, it knocks down and jumps upon the -weak vessel. - -What am I to do with a suit in which I hold absolutely nothing, say -the two, three, four and five? Did the doctrinaires never hear of such -a suit? One would imagine not. Am I to discard from king, queen and -another, or from knave to four, in order to keep four cards like that? -How about retaining every card of a powerful suit, regardless where -the trumps may be, knowing that unless it can be brought in somehow or -other, the game is gone? When I am compelled to discard from a weak -five suit, is that an order to my partner to lead in a singly or doubly -guarded king? - -If these difficulties—and there are numbers of others—only occurred -to me, with my natural modesty, I should consider myself the victim -of some congenital defect; but this is not the case; far from it. The -confusion on this head alone is awful, and what do the authorities -teach us? I have already quoted Mathews and Cavendish on Whist; the -second edition of Clay does not mention the forced discard, but it is -mentioned in the last new and _improved_ edition with a vengeance: -here I learn to my horror and amazement that “the discard from the -_strongest_ suit * * * _is admirably explained and developed in the -‘Laws and Principles of Whist,’ by Cavendish_.” - -Now this statement, which was made in 1881, is puzzling. I have already -pointed out that the “laws and principles of Whist” by Cavendish -neither explain nor develope anything of the kind, admirably or -otherwise, before and after that date, Cavendish in _The Field_ has -contradicted it in toto. His latest utterance, on which I can lay -my hand, is this. “The aphorism—discard from your strong suit to an -adverse trump lead is very imperfect”—as any aphorism, attempting to -lay down a fixed law for such an intricate subject, is bound to be—“and -misleading, and often gives rise to misunderstandings between partners -as to the true character of the discard. A player should carefully -consider the aspect of the game at the time the discard is made. With -no indication to guide him, he may assume his partner’s first discard -to be a protective one, if the adversaries have led, or called for -trumps; but if, notwithstanding an adverse lead, he can place the -command of trumps with his partner, or must so place it in order to -save the game, he should assume the reverse.” Here, though somewhat -verbose and obscure, he recognizes that the subject bristles all over -with difficulty. - -Now let us return for a moment to the _improved_ Clay. “The discard -from the strongest rests upon, * * * and upon the very reasonable -argument, that the partner is directed to lead the suit indicated by -the discard.” That a protective discard is a direction to my partner -to make me third player in the suit may seem reasonable to the modern -doctrinaire, but it is not the view ordinarily taken of it; then having -produced his highly objectionable animal in _puris naturalibus_, the -Editor winds up by _thanking Cavendish for his imprimatur_. - -This way madness lies! What Cavendish? how many Cavendishes are there? -there is certainly a Cavendish on Whist, and there is a Cavendish in -_The Field_; that makes two, on this point pretty much of one mind. -Is there a third, who appears for one brief moment, without father, -mother, or descent, mysterious as Melchizedek, just to contradict both -his namesakes, and then disappears for ever in the ewigkeit? This -conundrum is too much for me; I give it up, merely enquiring with an -ancient philosopher:— - - - Quousque tandem abutere patientiâ nostrâ? - - - - - -THE MODERN GAME. - - -BECAUSE a game has been overlaid by petty detail, and injured by -having its square pegs driven into round holes, it does not on that -account become a modern game, any more than the Trojan priest, when -the serpents set upon him and strangled him, became a modern Laocoon. -First, this figment of a modern game is devised, and then used as a -convenient peg to hang other figments upon. - -Whist, as far as I have been able to ascertain from a tolerably careful -study of the leading authorities, “has slowly broadened down from -precedent to precedent;” there has been no solution of continuity; and -other investigators hold the same belief. “We suspect that Cavendish -very often objected to that ancient plagiarist Mathews for stealing his -ideas.” “In the bulk the two systems agree.”—_Westminster Papers._ - -“There is no essential difference between modern and old-fashioned -Whist, _i.e._, between Hoyle and Cavendish, Mathews and J. C.”—_Mogul._ - -So “the modern game” would appear to be an imaginary line, on one -side of which stand all the authorities from Hoyle to Clay, including -Cavendish on Whist;—recently designated fossils—on the other, “the -great twin brethren,” Cavendish in _The Field_ and the ‘Theory of -Whist.’ - - - - -WOODEN ARRANGEMENT, NO. 3. - - -THE ORIGINAL LEAD OF THE LONGEST SUIT:—This, according to all accounts, -is the essence of modern Whist, and if not too much modern it is -certainly modern enough; for take any fossil you please, again -including Cavendish on Whist,—you must keep in mind the doubtful -personality of the three Cavendishes—and you will find no such lead; -that it is generally advisable to lead from your strongest suit, a -dogma old as the everlasting hills, is quite another matter. - -All authority is dead against the strongest, and _a fortiori_ against -the longest suit, _always_ being led. - -In the Westminster Papers for February and March, 1878, the point was -thoroughly ventilated; it is not my intention to quote the articles in -extenso, I have given you chapter and verse, and if you are anxious to -master the subject, you can either read it for yourself, or consult the -originals. - -The editor shows that Hoyle, Paine, Major A., Mathews, Clay, and -Cavendish on Whist, all teach that, though the strong suit should -_generally_ be led, the lead depends upon the hand and the score. He -points out that “Mathews recognizes the fact, which we all deplore, -that we must in the nature of things, have bad hands or peculiar hands, -such that the ordinary lead must be departed from;” that Hoyle, giving -directions how to play for an odd trick, says, “Suppose you are elder -hand, and that you have ace, king and three small trumps, with four -small cards of another suit, three small cards of a third suit, and one -small card of a fourth suit, how are you to play? You are to lead the -single card.” That Major A.—whom Clay describes as likely to be very -formidable among the best players of the present day—goes so far as to -say, “with a bad hand, do _not_ lead from three or four small cards.” - -So much for the books! His conclusion from observation is “In watching -good players, we find them averse to leading from their long suit -unless they have sufficient trumps or other cards of re-entry to -enable them to establish that suit. So also with the score advanced; -no one dreams of trying to bring in the long suit.” According to -the play that we see, with great weakness the rule is rather to lead -strengthening cards. For our own part we should be inclined to say, -“Lead from your strong suit only when you are sufficiently strong to -bring in that suit with the aid of reasonable strength on the part -of your partner.” “The supposed orthodox lead is absurd.” My own -opportunities for observation have been considerable, and I say “ditto -to Mr. Burke.” In the teeth of this, we have Cavendish in _The Field_, -and Dr. Pole, the great twin brethren again, affirming not only that -the strongest suit should always be led, and that the strongest suit is -the longest, but that “this system has stood the test of the experience -of a century and a half.” - - - The open, erect and manly foe, - Firm we may meet, perchance return the blow. - - -The three tailors of Tooley Street might have chanted in unison, - - - Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas, - - -with impunity, if they had only given their correct names and address. -It was because they attempted to pose as the people of England, with a -large P, that the laugh came in. - -In the same way Brown, Jones and Robinson, collectively or -individually, have an undoubted right to depose Clay from his pedestal, -and substitute wood as a better material for our idol; but they have no -right to palm it off on the worshippers as the real Simon Pure. - -I should like an answer to this simple question; if the longest suit is -always to be led, how is it that every Whist book, without exception, -gives minute directions for leading short suits? - -Another red herring trailed across the scent is that a four suit is a -normal suit, and that being normal it must always be led. In the first -place it is the strong suit, not the long suit, which is the normal -lead; in the second place, what is ‘normal’ by no means invariably -takes place, otherwise why does ‘abnormal’ still remain in our -dictionaries? - -When you hold a bad hand, it is just as philosophical to acquaint your -partner with that unpleasant circumstance by leading a strengthening -card, as it is to lead a long weak suit and leave him floundering about -in ignorance of everything but its length, and it has a much greater -weight of authority at the back of it. - -Pondering where the Dioscuri got hold of such extraordinary notions, it -flashed across my memory that in childhood’s happy hour, I had read in -Lemprière, that though they spent half their time with the immortals, -they passed the remainder “in another place;” hence these tears! - - - - -WOODEN ARRANGEMENT, NO. 4. - - -THE LEAD OF THE PENULTIMATE AND ITS CONGENERS.—Playing Whist some five -and twenty years ago with Cam for my partner, he led the trey of a -suit in which I held king, queen and another, I won with the queen, -and on the return of the king, which was taken by the fourth hand, Cam -played the deuce. From subsequent enquiry I found it was a lead of his -own, to inform the table he had three remaining, and no honour in his -own suit; I had never seen the device before; I did not think highly -of it when I did see it, and am of the same opinion still; however, -in 1865 it appeared in “What to Lead,” and was strenuously objected -to, by Mogul among others; but it is only due to the memory of my old -friend,—in his day an authority second to none—to state, that though -tenacious of his proposition, I never knew him suggest for one moment, -that it was an extension of any known, or unknown, principle. - -The credit of discovering a brand-new principle, and that the -penultimate lead is a legitimate extension of that discovery is, as -far as I am aware, entirely due to Cavendish’s unassisted ingenuity; -and here we learn incidentally what, in his view, a principle is; -for, after he had concluded to his own satisfaction, that from suits -containing a sequence that does not head the suit, the lowest card -of the sequence should be led—although Clay denied this flatly, -and objected to the lead in toto—he straightway elevated it into a -principle. - -How the penultimate lead is an extension of it, I have no idea; he -appears to have evolved both the principle and the extension from his -own internal consciousness. Anti-Cavendish puts this with such force -and perspicuity in the Westminster Papers, February, 1873, that the -whole article is well worth reading, and in these convention ridden -days is quite refreshing. I make an extract or two from his conclusion. -“The reasoning on which Cavendish grounds this invention is so faulty, -that one feels that in the pursuit of his hobby of ‘extension of -principle’ he loses his head altogether.” “It is a purely arbitrary -signal and might much more plausibly have been proposed as a means -of giving information without all the rigmarole about ‘extension of -principle,’ &c., &c., but then if so proposed, players would have -refused to adopt it; now, as disguised by Cavendish under a cloud of -words, too many will be ready to jump at it to save themselves the -trouble of thinking.” “No greater mistake can be made than to imagine -that it is desirable in every case to give information to your partner, -and players who are always endeavouring to do this, without reference -to the state of their hands, will surely in the long run suffer. -Whether to give or withhold information frequently tries the discretion -of the best players, and with weak hands the great necessity is to keep -your adversaries in ignorance, without deceiving your partner. Now if -this new signal were generally adopted, players would, as regards the -lead in question, be deprived of all discretion, and be compelled -either to give information to their adversaries, which might be used -against them with fatal effect, or else deceive their partners, whereas -the present lead, if it gives no information does not deceive your -partner. Another disadvantage is that in nearly all cases where either -adversary wins the second round, he will know whether or not he can -force his partner in that suit without risk of being overtrumped, but -if the original leader wins the second round his partner will rarely -get any positive information as to his strength until the third round.” -“These refinements of artifice are utterly opposed to the essence -of scientific Whist, viz., the necessity of rational deduction. To -substitute signals which convey information, without troubling the -brains, must tend to spoil the game.” - -Objections have repeatedly been taken to these conventions on moral -grounds, but as long as the Church and Stage Guild and kindred -associations exist, there seems no reason why we should be troubled to -look after our own morality. - -For my own part, although believing the principle to be extremely -doubtful and the extension far from clear, I am quite prepared to admit -that when you have a reasonable expectation of bringing in a five suit, -it is desirable that you should make your partner acquainted with the -exact length of it, but I am equally prepared to deny its expediency -when there is no chance of bringing it in; if such a suit must be -played, and you may be so unfortunately placed that it is unavoidable, -it would be much better to keep the length of it buried in your own -bosom. - -Oddly enough when another writer, emulous of extending the master, -and seduced by the analogy that what was sauce for the goose must be -sauce for the gander, suggested that if it was imperative to lead -the lowest but one of five, it must be equally obligatory to lead -the lowest but two of six; (indeed so clear is this next link in the -chain, that it was the very first thought of myself and some half-dozen -other light-minded persons, the moment we heard of the principle; -but, by ill luck, the seed fell on barren ground, for so far were we -from realizing the importance of our discovery, and taking immediate -steps to protect the patent, that, sad to relate, _solvuntur tabulæ -risu_), we find Cavendish in _The Field_ for a time deprecating such -an eminently logical extension, till I wake up one Saturday morning -and read that the antepenultimate does not go far enough, and that -under pain of becoming fossils, we must all lead the lowest but three -of seven, but four of eight, and so on until we arrive at the lowest -but nine of thirteen, when further extension in that direction becomes -impracticable. - -Fortunately this arrangement has been simplified, for the game would -have become even slower than it is, if whenever a player had a ten -suit, he had to repeat to himself, lowest but one of five, two of six, -three of seven, till he eventually arrived at lowest but six of ten, -and after much laborious whittling at the small end of nothing, the -ultimate outcome is, with any number of a suit from five to thirteen, -to lead the top but three. - -Apropos of this same ultimate outcome, in the Westminster Papers for -January, 1875, there is a remarkable statement: “We have the opinion, -never published, of a personal friend, that while you ought to lead the -lowest card in four suits, you should lead _the third from the top_ in -five suits;” and this anonymous genius is still “unwept, unhonoured and -unsung.” Such is fame! - - - - -SOME PILLARS OF THE EDIFICE. - - -PILLAR NO. 1.—THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHIST. - -IN case the _ipse dixit_ of Cavendish in _The Field_, or “the preface,” -should fail to convince, we have also had the sacred name of Philosophy -dragged in to countenance these proceedings. - -Ever since there has been any record of philosophers, their schools -appear to have been about as numerous as themselves. Plato for his -own share had five different sets of followers. All the systems -contradicted each other, and the disciples of each master usually held -different views as to his tenets; as this has continued down to our own -day, for the dogmatic philosopher who recently died in Chelsea spent -more than half a century in contradicting himself, while two of the -most prominent disciples of Comte are fighting tooth and nail at this -very moment, when we hear of _the_ philosophy of Whist, the enquiry -naturally arises, which philosophy? The Whist philosophy of Cam, -propounded day by day, was, that there is no absolute never or always. -The same idea runs through the entire treatise of Clay; and if there is -one point more especially distinctive than another in the teaching of -that great master, repeated again and again, and constantly insisted -upon, it is that all the maxims of Whist are open to innumerable -exceptions, that the coat must be cut according to the cloth, and that -he is the finest Whist-player who can most readily grasp that fact. -(Here I may remark, in a parenthesis, that though the late Mr. Clay -eventually gave a qualified assent to the penultimate lead and the -forced discard, it has yet to be shown that he assented to either the -one or the other, in its present uncompromising and preposterous form, -a form which is utterly repugnant to his every public utterance). - -This is considerably opposed to the fearful and wonderful philosophy -of Dr. Pole, the basis of which appears to be that it is always -imperative to lead your longest suit, which he naively admits to be a -losing game. It is unfortunate that his lines are drawn in a commercial -age, for if he had only lived in the time of Don Quixote he might have -taken high rank. - -To ignore the teaching of a long line of illustrious dead, to set -precedent at defiance, and deliberately to go out of your way in order -to lose, is an extension of the old stoical principle, “under all -circumstances to keep your temper,” in the very best latter-day manner; -but reasonably doubtful as to the success of such an appeal if left to -stand upon its own bottom, he invokes elementary algebra to his aid. -Now elementary algebra is not devoid of good points; by its means we -learn that a man may—either in time or in eternity—hold 635,013,559,600 -different whist-hands. Moreover, every hand, he will have an entirely -different purpose; sometimes to win the game; sometimes to save it, and -with that end in view, will lay himself out to make tricks varying -from three to eleven—below and above that number, since the invention -of short Whist, he has no need to trouble himself—and the moral most -people would draw, would be that in that portentous number of hands, -some of them would require very different treatment from others; the -philosopher of Whist, however, thinks not, but would fit all those six -hundred and thirty-five thousand odd millions of hands into the same -Procrustes’ bed, and would always lead the longest suit. Again, Whist -is an art; if in any sense a science, it is certainly not an exact -science, and the application of algebra to art is somewhat limited. -There are far too many unknown quantities in the equation. - -Take our old friend king and another in the second hand; Permutations -and Combinations will inform us sooner or later—I should imagine later, -for to my certain knowledge, a series of four thousand two hundred and -nineteen is not enough—as to the number of times we shall make it or -lose it, whether we play it, or do not play it; but they will give us -no clue as to the extent of damage we may receive when it is played -and taken by the third hand, or as to the loss we incur when the ace -is in the fourth hand, by importing uncertainty into the game. When we -do not put it on and lose it, we may—or may not—lose one trick; when -we put it on and lose it, we may lose any number. The whole system of -the newly suggested play of the first and second hand is undermined -by the fundamentally false assumption that the lead is always from a -long suit; that everybody, irrespective of the score, has merely to -ascertain which is his longest suit, and then to take immediate steps -to put the table in possession of its exact length is so transparently -simple, that such extreme simplicity in a game of skill is enough of -itself to arouse the gravest suspicion. - - - Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam, - Multa tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit. - - -Just to see how the plan worked, six consecutive times have I with king -and two others—using my best judgment as to the lead—passed the queen -led, and six times have I lost a trick; this may show that my judgment -was bad; but it shows, with much more absolute certainty, that the -lead, in those six cases, was not from numerical strength. - -If the lead always were, it needs no demonstration to prove that the -holder of the king has seldom anything to gain by heading the trick; -that might be granted without the slightest demur; only how about the -combination game? If the fourth player has to play the ace on the -queen led, where is the king? certainly, not according to our present -knowledge, in the second hand with one or two of the suit. - -As to not heading the queen with king and another, one of the latest -Cavendish coups, it is really so puerile, he must be practising upon -our credulity; the veriest bumble-puppist that ever crawled upon this -earth is too well aware that, every now and again, a trick may be made -by the most absurd and outrageous play—or rather want of play—otherwise -the breed would have been as extinct as the dodo. - -There are positions enough, where the king is the only card of re-entry -and where, unless the fourth hand can get in with the ace and draw the -trumps, the game is over, but it is not so here; the coup succeeds, -simply and solely, because, by a most improbable chance, the fourth -hand holds one, while the second player holds two of the suit. Genuine, -unadulterated bumble-puppy! Whenever I am induced to propound a system -of Whist philosophy, enlivened with texts from the Gospel according to -Cocker (_absit omen_), its fundamental principle will be that four in -thirteen goes twice. - -If I with king and another head the queen and make it, and have nothing -else to do, I can return the suit, ruff the third round and make three -consecutive tricks; not a bad thing in these hard times when the rental -of our estates is constantly diminishing, and the income tax has gone -up another penny. - -Now suppose I pass it and my partner makes the ace, he must open a -new suit. We have had a surfeit of statistics lately, still, if the -gentleman at present in possession of the calculating machine of the -late Mr. Babbage would kindly turn the handle, and let me know how many -tricks on the average are lost by merely opening a suit, I should be -much obliged to him. When the leader and his partner either hold the -whole of it, or nothing at all, it may be done with impunity, but under -ordinary circumstances it usually entails a loss of one trick and often -two. - -I have considered at some length the original lead of the longest suit, -and the lead of the penultimate, because on these two commandments hang -all the latter-day law, but not the profits: for on the strength—for -want of a more appropriate word—of these figments, at this very moment -our guide is attacking the recognised play of the third hand, our -philosopher is suggesting an entirely new set of proceedings for the -second hand, while both guide and philosopher are doing their level -best to assist our friend in New York to bouleverse the leads. - - -PILLAR NO. 2.—ILLUSTRATIVE WHIST-HANDS. - -IF you watch a thousand ordinary whist-hands, the great bulk will be -illustrative of (1) human stupidity; a few (2) of super-human cunning, -and out of the remainder the faddist may pick out (3) one or two to -countenance any form of mania from which he may be suffering at the -moment. - -The first class—always provided that you meet it in the spirit and not -in the flesh—is often amusing. - -The second is, if skilful, generally open to the objection that, -as the same result might be attained by a more simple and equally -legitimate method of play, there is an enormous amount of good skill -gone wrong. - -The third class—and this is the class we have now to deal with—is never -amusing, seldom skilful, and not uncommonly misses its tip altogether; -for instance, two hands given in the ‘Theory of Whist,’ to illustrate -certain leading principles of the game, were promptly gibbeted by -another eminent authority, and are still hanging in chains in the -Westminster Papers, for September and October, 1873, as “most striking -examples of brute force and stupidity.” - -In any case they prove nothing. Suppose some malefactor, with a turn -for leading singletons, were to bring before the public a dozen or two -of hands illustrative of results which would make any leader of the top -card but three livid with envy, at the same time suppressing two, four, -or six dozen hands, where the lead had brought him to condign grief, -would that in any way tend to show the lead was good? - -Still carefully selected hands, although we may disapprove of their -_raison d’être_, are not necessarily revolting to the intelligence; but -there is a limit, and attempting to show such a moral as this, that -with king and another, it is dangerous to play the king second hand -on the queen led, because your partner may hold the ace single, is -perilously near it. - -I am not perhaps so conversant with the Whist-hands in _The Field_ as I -ought to be, for the difficulty of its Catherine-wheel notation deters -me; but about two years ago, I came across a few _disjecta membra_ -intended to bolster up some mechanical substitute for brains, and a -similar fragment with a similar intention has lately been quoted in -that paper. To make the matter more simple we will transpose it from -the first to the third person. “A holds ace, knave, five, four, three -and two of hearts; his partner B holds king, queen and a small heart; -A leads the ace of hearts. He then leads three of hearts. His left -hand adversary, Y, plays ten, B queen, and Z, fourth player, nine. -Neither adversary has asked for trumps,” which is entirely a matter -of opinion; for as no human being knows, or ever will know, where a -single trump is, Z might have begun a call, and finding the whole heart -suit dead against him, and knowing the exact position of every card in -it, thought fit to conceal it. “Consequently two of hearts must be in -A’s hand, and three other hearts besides.” Up to this point, except -the little difference of opinion as to a signal, our unanimity is -wonderful. “All the trumps now come out,” and B, in the confusion, gets -rid of his king of hearts. That brief sentence about the trumps, like -the pie in Pickwick, which was all fat, is rather too rich. If Y and Z -had them and they “came out” against their will, it was rough on Y and -Z. If Y and Z, with the fact staring them in the face that B holds the -king of hearts and A the remaining four—for we are all agreed that this -is clear—took any active steps to induce trumps to “come out,” they -must have been rampant lunatics; even if Y and Z were not lunatics, but -as ardent admirers of the antepenultimate lead, and anxious for its -success, at any cost to themselves, merely did their best to ensure the -“coming out” of the trumps, how B got the opportunity to discard the -king of hearts would still be involved in Stygian darkness. The most -reasonable supposition, if Y and Z really did lead trumps, is that he -dropped it quietly under the table, in sure and certain hope that they -were the very last people to take a mean advantage of him. If A and -B, in addition to the entire suit of hearts, had also the strength in -trumps, nothing could prevent those hearts from being brought in. - -Though futile for the purpose designed, the fragment has two other -morals. - -(1) That if A and B hold the command of trumps, and an entire plain -suit, they can bring it in, _in spite_ of proclaiming its exact -position to the adversary. - -(2) That if Y and Z hold the trumps, when an antepenultimate is -led, those trumps not only appear to “come out” of themselves like -mushrooms—spontaneously and without obvious cause—which in itself -would be sufficiently aggravating, but they “come out” at the most -inopportune moments, to the dire discomfiture of their unfortunate -owners. (If any decently responsible person will guarantee that my -adversaries will always do their best to get trumps out for me whenever -I lead an antepenultimate, nobody shall in future have to complain of -my not going far enough in that direction). - -Special arrangements for taking a quantity above five are seldom of -practical use; on the contrary, such suits have an innate propensity -for making themselves unpleasantly conspicuous, without any _mécanique_. - -It must either be a very weak cause to require such advocacy, or an -uncommonly strong one to survive it. - - - Nec tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis. - - - -PILLAR NO. 3.—DEVELOPMENTS, EXTENSIONS OF PRINCIPLE, AND -GENERALIZATIONS. - - - The earth hath bubbles as the water hath, - And these are of them. - - -A DEVELOPMENT is such an ambiguous expression (for it may be either -good, bad or indifferent) that, on that understanding, we may freely -admit its existence; but an extension of principle has several -varieties, is as slippery as an eel, and both the extension and the -principle must be regarded with a wary eye. - -The principle that is extended by substituting ‘always’ for ‘generally’ -and then appealing boldly to history to sanction the alteration -is one form. Another form is to invent both the principle and the -extension when the occasion arises, as in the principle of leading the -bottom of an intermediate sequence, and its extension to penultimates, -antepenultimates, and so forth. Logicians term this _petitio_, not -_extensio principii_. - -Even when you have got firm hold of a good principle, or a good -india-rubber ring, you will get into trouble if you stretch it -indefinitely. - -There is no sounder principle going than that it is generally desirable -to acquaint your partner with the state of your hand, but it neither -follows that you should place it face upwards on the table, nor avail -yourself of those extensions known to Hoyle as “piping at whisk,” -though the first is undoubtedly legitimate, and the second, if it were -only first duly exploited by some faddist in _The Field_, would be -quite as legitimate as any extension that has appeared there in our -time. - -While these extensions of principle are in the air, some regard should -be paid to the interests of that numerous class whose information is -entirely derived from inspection of the last trick. Already they had -to find out in that obscure medium what suit was led, who led it, and -how each card fell. Now, they have in addition, to track to their lair -several missing minor cards, and when they have succeeded in doing so, -to decide whether they indicate a signal, a nine suit, the lowest of -a long head sequence, or the lunacy of the leader. If their happiness -is to be taken into consideration one important extension of principle -must be added to the list. - -It is a principle—vide law 91—that we may all see the penultimate -trick, and the extension that we may all see the antepenultimate and -so on up to thirteen, proceeds _pari passu_ with the other famous -demonstration; it also conveys the same kind of information, in exactly -the same way, for it shows those who have eyes in their heads that -which they already knew, and reduces to a more hopeless state of -imbecility those dependent on its aid. - -I do not advocate it for two reasons; in the first place, because I -abjure and detest the principle itself; secondly, because the only time -I ever attempted to extend a principle, I was accused of _sorites_, -which sounds like some unpleasant form of skin disease, and such -insinuations, though untrue, are disagreeable. As I do not wish to -expose myself to them, I make a present of the idea to any pupil of the -new academy who may be intent on further spoiling the game. - -“One man’s meat is another man’s poison,” and what the late -Government considered to be extensions of principle, developments and -generalizations, their successors stigmatize as— - - - “Red ruin and the breaking up of laws.” - - -The present condition of Whist may be briefly and graphically -expressed by the well-known epitaph:— - - - “I was well, I wanted to be better, now I am here.” - - -Among all the quasi-extensions of spurious principles, one fine old -crusted principle is in danger of being lost sight of altogether, and -now that attention is called to it, I sincerely hope that no modern -pedant will be tempted to extend it. The principle is, TO LEAVE WELL -ALONE. - -Such are the three remarkably unstable pillars, on which rest the -proposals for upsetting the recognized play of the first, second, and -third hand; and if they give way, down comes the entire superstructure. -Happily, the purely academic discussion on the American leads is not -likely to trouble the general public much; its fascinations for them -are not great, but if those fascinations should induce the doctrinaire -mind to lessen its mischievous activity in other directions, it may -yet turn out to be a blessing in disguise. As we are threatened with -a book devoted to these leads, I confine myself to mentioning that in -answer to eighteen enquiries, “What do you think of the new leads?” -sixteen replies were to the effect that a good player, if he took his -coat off and went into the matter thoroughly, might master them in six -months, and a duffer, under the same circumstances, in half a century, -but that in neither case was the game worth the candle; the advice of -the other two, to “go to Bath and get my head shaved,” was rude, and -the latter half of it quite uncalled for. - - - - -WHITTLING AT THE SMALL END OF NOTHING. CONVENTIONS AND ELABORATE RULES -FOR EXCEPTIONAL PLAY. - - -SO many articles have we had endeavouring to explain what a convention -is, from the Cavendish point of view, that at last the common-sense -view, driven from these inhospitable shores by the interminable flux of -words, has taken refuge at the Antipodes; it was seen in the office of -_The Australasian_ in May, 1884, and I presume it is there yet. If at -any time you happen to be passing through Melbourne, and send in your -card to the editor, I have no doubt he will show it to you. Item,—two -long articles giving minute directions when not to lead trumps from -five. - -If the basis of play is always to lead the longest suit these -directions must be altogether unnecessary; the answer is self-evident. -“You should invariably lead the penultimate from a five suit of trumps, -save and except when you hold a plain suit of greater length, and then -you should lead the highest but three.” - -Oh that mine enemy always would! for, I regret to say, some short time -ago, a miscreant—one of the soundest Whist-players in this country—took -up the four, five and six of diamonds (trumps); ace, knave, ten, -eight, four and three of hearts; king, six and four of spades; and the -eight of clubs, _which he led_. His score was one, ours four. I was -second player, and held, _inter alia_, ace, queen, seven and six of -clubs; and king, ten, eight, seven and five of trumps; my partner held -king, knave, five and four of clubs, and though he turned up the queen -of trumps, we lost four by cards and the game. - -Now this is a man who reads his newspaper, and should, in common -decency, have led the ace and four of hearts. Somewhat nettled by the -success of his nefarious play, I said to him, “even if you have not -seen the Fruits of Philosophy, you must know better than to lead a -singleton,” and this was his ribald reply:— - - - How sad and mad and bad it was, - But still how it was sweet. - - -To return to my subject. If any one were to ask me when not to lead -trumps with five, I should reply, “My very dear sir, it is not in my -power to provide you with intelligence, the stock in my possession is -barely sufficient for my own use; with five trumps, you should lead -them nearly always, especially when you are very weak in the plain -suits; but if, after acquiring a fair knowledge of general principles, -you are unable to find out for yourself when it is inexpedient to -lead them, I am quite sure nobody can teach you, and you may depend -upon this, that a multitude of minute rules, purporting to explain -to you when you should not do that which you would be right in doing -ninety-fives times in a hundred, are a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. - -“Lay to heart the story of that little fish, which desired to know -all the mysteries of fishing-tackle, and when its prayer was granted, -was unable to assimilate its knowledge, and perished miserably from -inanition. At the same time, if, after what I have said, you should -feel disposed to commit those two articles to memory, and to repeat -them to yourself whenever a difficulty arises, there is nothing in the -laws of Whist to prevent you.” - -It is sad to reflect that such an incomparable talent for applying -a straight-waistcoat to every thing should have blundered into a -wrong groove; a tithe of the energy and perseverance devoted to -throttling intelligence, and knocking the brains out of the game, -would have placed our villainous code of laws, and our incongruous -and contradictory decisions on a sound basis; but it was not to be; -_dis aliter visum_, and the following pathetic appeal, reprinted from -“_Knowledge_,” has been treated with silent contempt:— - - - - A WHIST-PLAYER’S WAIL. - - Whist-players have long been suffering acutely - from three uncertainties—uncertainty of the laws, - uncertainty of decisions, and uncertainty of authority. - - The laws are ninety-one in number, and, in “Cavendish - on Whist,” are supplemented by forty-three explanatory - notes and a couple of suppositions, which again have - been further explained—if explain is the right word - in this connection—by innumerable irresponsible - decisions. Now, though it may be Utopian to expect such - a badly-worded jumble of laws and definitions ever to - be superseded by an intelligible code, is it impossible - to have these decisions based on a principle of some - kind, or, at any rate, for them to be consistent with - themselves? - - At one time the decider has confined himself to the - strictest letter of the law, at another time he has - strained it to breaking; sometimes he has read the - laws one with another; sometimes he has taken one and - left the other out in the cold; sometimes he appears - arbitrarily to give his decision out of his own head, - quite irrespective of any law whatever; and finally, - and worst of all, after consistently maintaining - one position for years and years, until—rightly or - wrongly—some doubtful point is settled, he suddenly - turns round, with his tail where his head always used - to be, flatly contradicts himself, and throws it once - more into confusion. - - The usual excuse for a _volte face_ of this kind is, - “that this is a free country, where every man has a - right to change his opinions;” and I never hear that - dreadful exordium without instinctively making for the - door, knowing from bitter experience that mischief - is brewing. “That judges themselves differ, and the - judgment of one court is often over-ruled by another,” - this also is, I am afraid, true, though it has no - bearing on the matter in hand; for here we have a judge - who, on his appointment to the bench—granting, what - is strongly disputed, that a Whist arbitrator is a - judge and has a bench—having found a well-established - precedent and taken it for his guide in numerous - judgments, one fine day reverses it without notice and - without leave to appeal. - - To show that I am not making random accusations, I give - three examples—there are others in stock, but these - appear sufficient for my immediate purpose:— - - I. “The cards are cut. In taking up the packs, I join - the two packs, but leave one card on the table; this - card would have been the middle, not the bottom card. - I claim a fresh cut; my adversaries claim that it is a - misdeal. Am I entitled to a new cut or not?” Answer, - No. 1. “We think you cannot make your adversary cut - a second time. We do not think that when you left a - card on the table it could be said that there was any - confusion in the cutting, and unless you can make out - that what you did amounted to confusion in the cutting, - it is a misdeal.” - - Answer, No. 2. “The claim is void. There is nothing - in the laws or the custom of the table to make this - a misdeal.” Both these decisions are by the same - authority. A more recent authority says, “According to - the old rules, a misdeal might have been claimed; but - not now, under Law 34.” The explanation is ingenious, - if not ingenuous; but it is open to the objection that, - as the first decision is dated December, 1873, nine - years after the present laws came into force, it is - scarcely water-tight. - - II. If A asked B whether he had any of a suit in which - B had renounced, and B, instead of replying, turned - and quitted the trick, and was subsequently brought to - bed of one or more, his silence, combined with turning - and quitting the trick, was ruled to be an answer in - the negative within the meaning of the Law and he had - revoked. - - This is a decision of Clay’s; and though disputed - at the time, was the settled practice of Whist for - fourteen or fifteen years. - - Three or four years ago this decision was reversed, - and authority has now taken its stand upon the literal - interpretation of Law 74. - - III. Some little time since my opinion was asked on - this point. It was sent to me by a friend in Australia. - “A and B _v._ Y and Z. Eleven tricks have been played. - At the twelfth trick A leads a Heart, Y plays a Club, - B plays a Spade. Before Z has played, Y throws down - his last card, which turns out to be a Heart. Has he - revoked?” - - Being mortally afraid of putting my foot in it, I much - prefer to leave the mysterious borderland between - sanity and insanity to experts in lunacy; however, - in the sacred cause of friendship, I screwed up my - courage, and, with considerable trepidation, gave - an opinion to this effect. “It appears to me that Y - certainly—this sounds unpleasantly like slang, but such - is not my intention—revoked if the club was a trump, - and, probably, if it was a card of a plain suit, for in - playing his last card he either led or abandoned his - hand, which has always been held to be an act of play - establishing the revoke.” - - The question was next submitted to three of the - best-known and most-respected authorities in this - country—all champion deciders—whom we will call P. Q. - R. P. replied, “Unless clubs are trumps I do not think - Y. has revoked. He has not played again. He has exposed - a card. If clubs were trumps I think he has played - again (am not sure). The case is not sufficiently - stated for a positive opinion.” - - Q. and R. did not regard it as insufficiently stated - in any way, and they had no hesitation in saying that - Y had not revoked. - - When by the next mail it turned out that hearts were - trumps, when, consequently, the revoke was a shade - more doubtful than before, while P made no further - sign, Q and R came to the unanimous conclusion that Y - had revoked. The authority at the Antipodes who ruled - originally that there was no revoke, remains in the - same mind up to the present time. - - Is this “vacillating and inconsistent,” or is it not? - - Here in a not very complicated difficulty—if only there - was any agreement on first principles, we have - - (_a_) A benighted outsider thinking a revoke is - established, because a well-known decision overrides - the law; - - (_b_) An intelligent colonist thinking it is not - established, because he considers the law to override - the decision. - - (_c_) Authority No. 1 giving a somewhat uncertain - sound, but on the whole inclining to the belief that - it is either a revoke or it is not; evidently a man of - judicial mind. - - (_d_) Authorities 2 and 3, while never in doubt for - a moment, first affirming a thing to be white, and - afterwards, when it has been bleached and is to some - extent whiter than before, with unabated confidence - affirming it to be black; and there an important - question, involving the highest penalty known to the - law, rests. - - If the force of absurdity can go beyond this, then “it - can go anywhere and do anything.” - - The facts are in a nutshell. Either _Y_, when he threw - his card up, abandoned his hand, or he did not. If he - did, and _if that is an act of play which establishes a - revoke_, then he revoked; if he did not, he had merely - to say so, _cadit quæstio_; the card is an exposed - one—“just that, and nothing more.” Only we have one, - or rather two little difficulties to get over. Does - abandoning the hand establish a revoke? and, if it - does, is the decision authoritative—that is to say, of - compulsory obligation? - - Who the original decider was, or who gave him authority - to make a penal enactment in the teeth of Laws 58 and - 73, I do not know. All I do know is that the decision - must not be fathered on Clay, for his case 8, “_A_ has - revoked; _his claim of the game_ and throwing down his - cards must be held as against himself as an act of - playing,” is not on all fours; it occupies much firmer - ground. - - Here are two well-matched decisions, “Silence is - an answer.” “Throwing down the cards establishes a - revoke,”—of course, with the proviso that one has - been made—both strain the law; both entail the revoke - penalty; the only difference is that one is in the - _ipsissima verba_ of Clay, the other is a mangled - excerpt; if the strong one has been quietly and - surreptitiously burked, why, in the name of ordinary - patience, does the weaker survive? - - If decisions are retreating all along the line to a - safer standpoint on the letter of the law, well and - good; only tar them all with the same brush, and take - some means to let the public know it. - - Before the lamented demise of the Westminster Papers, - disputed points were argued at length; whether in the - number of counsellors there was wisdom, or whether - too many cooks spoiled the broth, in either event we - heard both sides. Question and answer could be found - together, and if the decision did not invariably - commend itself to our intelligence, we at any rate knew - what the decision was, and that was the main point; but - now our position has changed greatly for the worse. - The present practice of Whist—a direct incentive to - gambling—is this; whenever any doubt arises, instead - of being able to lay their hands upon the recorded - decision and settle it at once, the parties concerned - first make a bet of one or more sovereigns and then - write to the _Field_. On the ensuing Saturday afternoon - a certain amount of money changes hands; two people - are wiser, but the increase of wisdom is confined to - themselves, and at the very next table the same process - is repeated; while numerous quiet, well-meaning people - like myself, who never bet, never know anything at - all; for such answers as these, “X. It is a revoke,” - “A. S. S. You cannot call on Z to pass it,” partake - very much of the nature of Valentines in that, however - interesting they may be to the recipient, they arouse - no corresponding emotion in the world at large. - - Lastly, with regard to the authority. - - Whist-players are law-abiding to a degree, and - sufferance is the badge of all their tribe; but still - they would like to know how the authority obtained what - the imperfect Member for Northampton is so fond of - calling his mandate; whether by divine or hereditary - right, by competitive examination, by election, by - appointment from the Crown, or whether he sits upon - us by “the good old rule, the simple plan” _of force - majeure_ as the Old Man of the Sea sat upon Sindbad. - - Bartholomew Binns, an official with the highest - credentials, after being selected from numerous - candidates, and receiving a mandate from the sheriffs - of London and Middlesex, has his decisions reviewed by - twelve good men and true, and reporters are present - who publish them through the length and breadth of the - land? How is our executioner appointed? Who reviews - his decisions? How are they promulgated? Not that it - matters to me, personally. When my fatal Monday comes - round and _sus. per coll._ is written under my name in - the family archives, I do not imagine it will trouble - me much whether the operator was born great, has - achieved greatness, or has had greatness thrust upon - him. I do not object to the instrument, I object to the - system; but many Whist-players are more fastidious, - and protest strenuously against being treated worse - than other criminals. They hold that the position of a - functionary who takes upon himself to decide important - questions of law, and to upset old-established - precedents, and manufacture new ones on his mere _ipse - dixit_, should be very clearly defined, and that if one - man is to unite in his own proper person the attributes - of prophet, priest and king—three single gentlemen - rolled into one—he should be duly anointed, consecrated - and crowned, _ad hoc_. - - For questions involving common courtesy, for insoluble - verbal quibbles, for ethical questions of this type, - “Ought A to sit quietly at the table while his partner - B picks Z’s pocket? and if he ought, is it right for - him to share the plunder?” and for the host of minor - cases which constantly arise, and for which no law - could possibly provide, no better arrangement than the - present could be devised. As long as maniacs exist in - the land, klepto-, dipso-, homicidal, or Whist—offences - must come, and in disposing of them—where a cadi is - the only effective treatment that can be openly - suggested—the editor of the _Field_ is _facile - princeps_, - - - In faith he is a worthy gentleman, - Exceedingly well read. - - - Only if he is to be the _de facto_ authority in _all_ - cases, why not give him the three sanctions just - mentioned, and make him the authority _de jure_? - Then—as the _Field_ is not a Whist gazette, and - can scarcely be expected to devote its columns to - advertising gratuitously every legislative change, - and any space it has to spare is used rather for - elaborating the ceremonial than for settling the - laws of the cult—in token of our esteem, let us club - together and present him with a piece of chalk, a - duster, and a black board, to be set up in some - easily-accessible spot—say, the middle of Pall - Mall, or St. James’s-street. Make it the official - notice-board! When new decisions are created let - them be legibly inscribed upon it, _coram populo_! - When well-known decisions are abrogated let them be - carefully rubbed out at once. Since the Bastille was - destroyed and _lettres de cachet_ with it, there has - been no authority without a notice-board; the Salvation - Army has its “War Cry,” and the Pope himself, when he - propounds a new dogma, propounds it _ex cathedrâ_. - - That is one remedy. Though it is not perfect it has - two advantages—it is inexpensive, and if in future any - of us should still remain in ignorance, we should be in - ignorance by our own fault, and not by misfortune; and - at any rate it is a more simple and less tortuous plan - than upsetting well-known decisions in an unofficial - newspaper, while new editions of our two standard - Whist-books are subsequently brought out without one - word of comment or warning. - - The alternative remedy—by no means novel, it has been - suggested, _usque ad nauseam_, and I only bring it - forward again because at present confusion is worse - confounded than it has ever been in my recollection—is - for the leading clubs to appoint a small committee of - representative Whist-players, with power to revise any - decisions they may see fit; and when they have revised - them either to append them to the laws of Whist, or to - place each decision as a rider under its own particular - law, and every such decision should be final. - - Questions of strict law should never have been - submitted to an arbitrator at all; they should have - been cleared up long ago by the legislators themselves; - though important, they are not very numerous, and - as they have been well threshed out, and all their - difficulties are known, the entire matter might be - completed in a few hours. Why should London wait? - - -The constitution of Whist and the constitution of our beloved country -are both at the mercy of a grand old man of exuberant verbosity, each -of whom is able, in some extraordinary way, to persuade himself that -the side of any question on which he happens to be looking, is not only -the right side, but that it positively has no other, in spite of the -fact that in previous stages of his existence, he has himself, both -recognised and vehemently supported that other side. - -For twelve years our despot—a despotism worse than Russian, which is -tempered by assassination—has had no rival near the throne; for five -he has absolutely had nobody even to contradict him, and what is the -upshot? Why this: - - -[2] - THE EDIFICE WHEN LAST THE MODERN SUBSTITUTE. - SEEN IN 1879. - - 1. That the strongest suit 1. That the longest suit - should generally be led. should always be led. - - 2. That with a bad hand—which 2. That with any kind of - unfortunately is a hand, you have merely to - quite a normal condition—a pick out the four suit, which - strengthening card, or the is the normal suit, and lead - head of a short suit, should it. - generally be led. - - 3. That the penultimate 3. That (as far as the innumerable - is a useful lead when there exceptions permit) - is a reasonable prospect of the penultimate of a - bringing the suit in. five suit should always be - led. - - 4. That no greater mistake 4. That you should always - can be made, than to give the table information - imagine it is desirable in of the exact length of your - every case to give information suit. - to your partner. - - 5. This being entirely a 5. That with suits from - new extension, except as a five to thirteen, the top card - joke, what view would have but three should be led. - been taken of it five years - ago it is impossible to say - positively; but I have my - own opinion. - - 6. That the discard, when 6. That the discard, when - the adversary declares the adversary declares - strength in trumps, is a protective strength in trumps, is from - discard, to prevent the strongest suit, and is a - him, if possible, from establishing direction to the discarder’s - any suit. partner to lead that suit. - - That the aphorism, discard - from the strong suit, is - very imperfect and misleading. - - 7. That when an honour 7. That if an honour is - is led, if the second player led, the second player - holds a higher honour and should never head it except - not more than three of the with the ace. - suit, he should head the - trick. - - -Always doubtful of my own arithmetic, I am indebted for the following -figures to a little boy who has recently passed the Fourth Standard at -an adjacent Board-school. He informs me that during the last decade -three and a quarter inches of small print have been devoted by the -editor of the _Field_ to explaining that the modern rule of play at -Whist is to discard from your best protected suit, when trumps are -declared against you; twenty-one square inches to supporting the usual -lead of a small card, from ace to four; and three square inches to -reversing Clay’s and his own long-established decision, that silence is -an answer; seventy-eight square inches to minute directions when not -to lead trumps from five; three hundred and fifty-eight square inches -to explaining what a convention is, and one acre, two roods, and eight -perches—be the same more or less—to articles and hands purporting to -illustrate the American leads, and placing the sheep on the right and -the goats on the left, we have:— - - - EVIL. GOOD. - - One acre, two roods, eight perches, Twenty-one sq. - plus three square inches, inches, - plus seventy-eight square inches, plus - plus three hundred and fifty-eight three and a quarter - square inches. sq. inches. - - -My young informant adds that the evil, if represented in square inches, -is 6,273,079, and is in proportion to the good as 258,683 to 1. - -The moral would seem to be, that sufficient ink may make an acre and a -half of white paper black, but will never make those two sides balance. - - - These be thy gods, O Israel. - - -Our ancestors built up and handed down to us a noble game: be it our -aim to keep it undefiled. The task is difficult. - - - Facilis descensus Averni est, - Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras, - Hic labor, hoc opus est. - - -An ordinary mind might withstand the philosophy of losing its money -on principle; it might resist the blandishments—not to say fallacies -in this connection—of the first part of algebra; American leads will -never trouble it; but a system which absolves Mrs. Juggins and her -constituents (a most numerous and important body, where noses are -counted and not weighed) from any necessity for drawing an inference, -and at the same time assures them, that not only is it the concentrated -wisdom of all the ages, but that they are its hierophants, is a great -power. - - - Yet, how can man die better than facing fearful odds, - For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods? - - -And if the modern iconoclast will scatter those ashes, and will destroy -those temples, we can at any rate dree out our weird, in the proud -consciousness that we have done our best to prevent him. - - - - -CONCLUSION. - - -IN twelve years one general principle has been faintly upheld, while -three have been stretched on the rack and distorted till their own -mothers would scarcely know them. - -If poor Mathews were to revisit the glimpses of the moon, and to come -across that _improved_ edition of Clay, could he ever guess that the -ricketty abortion in the preface had ever been his own healthy and -intelligent bantling? - -Whist-players of every degree, from Deschapelles to Mrs. Juggins, are -now all supposed to lead the same card—I know they try; for, after -much anxious thought, I have often seen the penultimate led from king, -queen and three small cards—and with such a hand as this: ace, king, -queen, knave of diamonds; two, three, four, five, six and seven of -hearts; two and three of clubs; and the deuce of spades (trumps), -whatever the score, if Deschapelles were to lead the king of diamonds, -and Mrs. Juggins the four of hearts, according to our latest teaching, -the old woman would receive the gold medal for scientific play, while -Deschapelles would not be in it. - -More than that, although while Mrs. Juggins was making futile attempts -to establish her long suit, and to explain she held originally six, -several diamonds would probably be discarded, and she would be in -danger of never making a trick at all; the apparent end of conventions, -philosophy and American leads being not to make tricks, but to enable -the table to count your hand, the award would be right. - -Twelve years has the mountain been in labour, and, as Miss Squeers -remarked, with ungrammatical emphasis, “this is - - - THE HEND.” - - - - - - ————————————————————— - G. E. WATERS, 97, WESTBOURNE GROVE, LONDON. - - - - - * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber’s Note: - -Obvious punctuation errors were corrected. - -The printer was inconsistent in using terminal punctuation after a -player’s initial. This was retained as printed. - -Page 60, repeated word “with” removed from text (with considerable -trepidation) - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE DECLINE AND FALL OF WHIST*** - - -******* This file should be named 54145-0.txt or 54145-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/4/1/4/54145 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |