violation of these conditions only. When this occurs it is called a foul stroke. When no score is made, no notice is taken of it, except when the stroke comes under laws 27, 28, and 29. Should the player, making a foul stroke, make also a canon or a hazard, the adversary may cause the balls to be broken. The score made does not count, and the adversary may lead or cause his opponent to lead at his option. All the laws, except those of Hunt, make the player who has not made the foul stroke lead after the balls are broken. This is to give an advantage to the wrongdoer. Although we acknowledge this to be the custom, we think Hunt's law so much the fairer that we have ventured to adopt it. 27. If a foul stroke is made in giving a miss or coup, it is at the adversary's option to claim the foul stroke or the forfeit, but not both. 28. Should the player violate law 25 in playing from balk when in hand, the adversary has the option of letting the balls remain and scoring a miss; of having any ball struck replaced, and scoring a miss; of making the player replace the balls and play again; or of treating it as a foul stroke, when the balls are broken. 29. If the striker plays with the wrong ball and does not score, the adversary chooses which ball he shall play with. Should he take his adversary's ball, the ownership remains changed till the end of the game. 30. Should the balls be found changed, without knowledge of when the error arose, or should both players have played with the wrong ball, the game must be continued with the balls as last played with. 31. If either player move a ball, but not in playing, the ball must be replaced where it stood in the opinion of the adversary. 32. If the marker, or a bystander, move a ball it is to be replaced where it stood in the opinion of the marker. 33. The marker shall decide all disputes, without appeal. If he has not seen what occurred, he may apply for information to such of the bystanders, as he pleases. We have substituted this for the usual complicated arrangements for taking the opinion of the bystanders, should the marker not be able to decide or be interested. The great object in case of a dispute is to get a decision quickly. Whether it is right or wrong, is of minor consequer.ce. We have also omitted advice to bystanders, often improperly included in the laws. A law given by Burroughes and Watts (No. 11), by Magnus (No. 16), and by Bennett (No. 17) is unintelligible to us, and therefore omitted. Magnus and Bennett also require the player when in hand, and playing from balk, to stand so that both his feet shall be within the limits of the corner of the table. We have never heard of this law being obeyed, and have therefore omitted it. Burroughes and Watts say the balls may be broken by mutual consent. include this in the laws. We do not think it necessary to DRAMATIC NOTES. THEATRES, whilst conservative on most points, as, for instance, fees, dirt and discomfort, have almost universally disestablished the day following Christmas Day as an occasion for the production of new pieces. As was the case this time last year, several changes have been made just before Christmas, and Mr. Gilbert's annual play at the Haymarket is announced, like its predecessor, for the first week in January. It is to be hoped that Mr. Gilbert will not see fit to mar his new handiwork with the objectionable features that attracted attention in the Wicked World. We can assure him, if he condescends to read these lines, that the Pall Mall Gazette was not alone in its opinion as to the indelicacy of certain portions of the Wicked World. In the WESTMINSTER PAPERS for February 1873, we ventured to assert that portions of the play, entering, as they did, upon a surgical and anatomical description of the symptoms, characteristics and results of love, were unfit for the ears of young girls delicately and tenderly nurtured, who might be among the audience at the Haymarket. In so writing, we fully appreciated the poetry, the grace, and even the wisdom of Mr. Gilbert's ideas, but surely such ideas are no more fitted for girls and boys than are certain standard books of all ages which gentlemen read for themselves but keep out of the sight of their families. Drury Lane and Covent Garden will, as is their wont, give pantomimes, and their classic boards will be occupied with much profit by Siberian skaters, American wonders, Mexican acrobats, one-legged dancers, ponies, dogs, monkeys, and everything else of the same order which the shoals of well-to-do people who visit the theatre at this period, and no other, regard as the representatives or exponents of dramatic art. The Princesses Theatre also announces a pantomime "for children," who, having partaken of the (to them) uninteresting roast beef of Mrs. Rousby's Griselda, will complete their Christmas fare by the plum pudding of fairies and transformation scenes. We do not wish to be rated amongst those ogres who object to see the dear little ones enjoy themselves. On the contrary, we only wish the entertainment now called pantomime were more worthy of their countenance, and we put it to any parent or guardian whether yawns and long faces are not more frequent than smiles and laughter, now that scenery, legs and lime light have driven away all fun in pantomimes. Fun has at least been driven away from Drury Lane and Covent Garden, but it may possibly be found in the suburban and transpontine theatres, at no less than sixteen of which we find, from the columns of the Era, that pantomimes are given. As these theatres depend entirely on local patronage, it may be, after all, that the true spirit of pantomime is not dead, but only banished from the circle of the better classes. The past month may be fairly signalised as the month of old comedy, for, in addition to the Road to Ruin at the Vaudeville, the Belle's Stratagem has been played at the Strand, Wild Oats at the Royalty, the Hypocrite and John Bull at the Gaiety, and an adaptation of old comedy, the School of Intrigue, at the Olympic. A specimen of new comedy was indeed produced at the Royalty, in the earlier part of the month, written by Mr. Albery, and entitled Married, but a complicated and unnatural plot caused it to have a brief career, its end being hastened, we trust, by a coarseness of dialogue conspicuous in all Mr. Albery's plays. But a noteworthy feature in Married, as also in Wild Oats, was and is the acting of Miss Henrietta Hodson, who is capable, we believe, of becoming an actress second to none on the stage. She has grace of manner, ease of movement, and a distinct and polished utterance, forming in all a combination of gifts very rarely to be seen together on the stage. As to the revivals of the Hypocrite and John Bull, we presume they were owing less to a desire for old comedy than to an opportunity of exhibiting, at the Gaiety, a grand constellation of stars, in the persons of Messrs. Phelps, Charles Mathews, Toole and Vezin. One must admire the energy and enterprise displayed by Mr. Hollingshead in his management of the Gaiety; he has not only done great things himself, but aroused the whole managerial world to emulation, and he has shown that literary cultivation is no slight aid to business capabilities in the direction of a theatre. Not that he is a man apparently prejudiced in favour of sweetness and light, for we believe he would turn the Gaiety into a dancing saloon to-morrow if he thought he could please the public thereby. But observing that the public have developed a taste for old comedy, he gives them what they ask for, and engages the first actors of the day to play to them. The result has been an extraordinary rush of all classes to the Gaiety for nine nights, and we believe that on any evening the pit and gallery might have been filled five times over. We do not suppose that these enormous crowds were attracted by the Hypocrite or John Bull, excellent though they may be; but rather by the affectionate wish to see Mr. Phelps, Mr. Mathews and the younger, but equally popular, Mr. Toole, acting in the same play. Mr. Phelps has been somewhat neglected of late years, but he is still first and foremost in the hearts of a vast number of the public, and his vigorous and broad impersonations of Doctor Cantwell and Job Thornberry show that old age and increasing years have not weakened his power to any great extent. On the first night of the Hypocrite he appeared ill at ease and nervous; and his delivery was so hesitating that we began to fear his day was over, and that he must henceforth be regarded, like Mr. Webster, as a veteran lagging behind his time. But no trace of this was left in John Bull, in which he was animated and firm, and, in professional language, played his companions off the stage. Mr. Mathews indeed had scant opportunity of showing his peculiar vein of comedy as Tom Shuffleton, and it is therefore the more to his credit that he consented to play second fiddle. As for the comedies themselves, John Bull is sufficiently lively and interesting, but the Hypocrite, as played now, is very dull. The long conversations between Charlotte, Darnley and Colonel Lambert, were found to bore the audience extremely, and both Doctor Cantwell and Mawworm are too seldom on the stage to fix attention. We presume that when the play was originally presented, the actors playing in it were pretty much on a level; but at the Gaiety there is a great gulf between the representatives of the characters we have named. The cast at Sadlers' Wells, fifteen years ago, was a better one, when Mr. Ray was Old Lambert, Mr. Marston the Colonel, and Mr. and Mrs. Charles Young (now Mrs. Vezin) were Mawworm and Charlotte. But dull though the Hypocrite is, it is certainly not duller than the copy of old comedy made by Mr. Mortimer for the Olympic Theatre, and entitled the School of Intrigue. There is nothing in the dialogue to relieve the wearisome and oft-repeated commonplace of the characters playing hide and seek, and dodging each other in and out of cupboards, bedrooms and pavilions, which amusement is carried on during the three acts of Mr. Mortimer's adaptation of Le Mariage de Figaro. The essence of the play evaporates in translation, and if the fun is lost, nothing remains; for the morality is indifferent. Intrigue of this kind is a school at which nothing can be learned with profit, and is only tolerable when allied to the music of Mozart, or exhibited in the harlequinade of a pantomime. At the Globe Theatre a version of Dombey and Son, under the title of Heart's Delight, has been presented, in homage to the season. Skilled as Mr. Andrew Halliday has shown himself in the art of stewing down novels into plays, his task in this instance must have been painfully difficult. He has got through it by omitting two-thirds of the personages in the book, and by ignoring the episode of Little Paul; but, with all that, he has been unable to compress his work into less than four acts, and these must be really unintelligible to those who have not read the book, or to those who, having read it, have forgotten it. The difficulty of comprehending the drift of the proceedings is increased when Mr. and Mrs. Dombey, and other characters, commence those long and mysterious speeches of confused'explanations about nothing, which are very frequent in this, as in other of Mr. Dickens' novels. It must have occurred to many readers of the great novelist, that when he allows his characters to get on the stilts, and indulges them with long speeches as to why they did this, and why they behaved so to each other, on certain occasions, that he becomes slightly tedious; and if he is tedious in reading, he is doubly so on the stage. Who can explain the meaning of Mrs. Dombey's long speeches and dark allusions; or of her flight with Carker; or of her brief and unexpected appearance in the last act? In other respects the play is a series of scenes illustrative of Dickens, but very slightly connected with one another. In the first act we have the old instrument maker's shop, followed by a carpenter's scene, to prepare the way for Mr. Dombey's library; in the second act the shop again, followed once more by a carpenter's scene, this time to enable the scene shifters to present Mr. Dombey's drawing room. The third Act, in which we are suddenly taken to Dijon, is episodical, and finishes off Carker and Mr. Dombey, who, with Mrs. Dombey, comprise the persons appearing in it. In this act Carker, instead of being killed by a train, swallows poison. We do not believe that Carker was the man to carry poison about with him, and seeing that Miss Helen Barry has been flourishing a carving-knife in his face for ten minutes or so, we do not see why Mr. Fernandez should not despatch himself with this ready and convenient weapon, in place of pulling from his bosom the timehonoured phial of poison. The fourth act restores us to the homely and virtuous atmosphere of the old shop, and settles the happiness of Captain Cuttle and his young friends. This act is the most effective of all, and though certain of the incidents are clumsily managed from an artistic point of view, they appeal directly to soft and gentle bosoms, male and female, whose good opinion is more profitable to a manager than that of all the critics put together. The acting is fairly good throughout, though it may be said of Mr. Cowper that he makes Mr. Dombey look more like a dissenting draper than a pompous merchant, and the voice and gestures of Miss Barry suggest rather the shrewish Katharine than the true tragedy queen. But Mr. Emery towers over the rest in his fine impersonation of Captain Cuttle. Mr. Emery was always a good actor, but there seems less mannerism and more mellowness about him than heretofore; and his Captain Cuttle is a picture worthy to hang by the side of his Peggotty. Both confer on him a right to take his place with the best actors of the day. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. CHESS. J. G. (Ipswich).-Accept our best thanks for the problems. No. I is good and acceptable, but No. 2 lacks finish. If Black play 1 P to B 7, or Kt to Q 2, White can mate with Queen (on either of two squares), or with Kt, or with Pawn T. H. (Berwick, Australia).—We believe No. 3 can be solved by IQ to Q R 5; and No. I was ink-blotted when received, so that we have been unable to decipher it. We shall look at No. 3 again, but in the meantime we explain our delay in publishing it. R. W. J. (Lancaster).—We are obliged for the information concerning No. 351, and note the passage in your second letter referring to your four-move problem. The other position requires re-examination; for, if after White's move, 3 Kt takes B, Black plays 3 Q to Kt 5. We do not see how to force selfmate in two more moves. D. O. W. (Ipswich).-The problem can be solved by Q to QR square, 2 P`Queen's, check and 3 Q (either of them) mates. C. W. (Ahmednuggur).—The five-move problem, numbered 25, cannot be solved if Black plays 1 P to KR 5. No. 5 can be solved by 1 Q to Q 2 ch, 2 Q to K 2 ch, and 3 Kt mates. C. W. M. D.-Look at Nos. 28 and 41 again; in the former I B to Q 3 suffices, in the latter 1 Kt to K B 8, and 2 Kt to K 6 effect a solution in two moves. W. R. M. G. (Glasgow).—No. I admits of a second solution, thus: 1 K to Kt 3, 1 P to Q6 (best); 2 K to B 3, 2 aught; 3 Q mates. S. GOLD (Vienna).-The review reached us too late for the last number. Thanks. G. A. R. (Guildford).--A new work on the Chess Openings, by Mr. Wormald, will appear in a few weeks. J. N. K. (Salisbury)-Thanks for the problems. We quite agree with you that it is very difficult for a composer to test the accuracy of his own problems, and we are, at all times, willing to assist. V. G. (Bushey).--The Review came to hand too late for our last number. (1) We do not propose to answer the impertinent letter that accompanied yours; what our esteem for you does not persuade us to concede, we shall certainly deny to a person who holds out the ridiculous threat of sending the problem to another paper. Besides which, we have no desire to promote in any way the formation of a mutual admiration clique among Chess players. WHIST. B. (Formation of new table).-Six players desire to form a table to play higher points than the Club points. Is there We assume our any law to prevent them so doing?—Ans. correspondent refers to Whist law, and not to any special Club law. If the six persons, who first enter the Club, choose to form a table, they can do so, and play as they please. But if any other member is in the room before any one of the six, you cannot make a law to his prejudice. You cannot take away his right. He comes to the Club to play; and he comes to play Club points, and not to play higher points. You would deprive him of his rubber, and might keep him out the whole day. BEGINNER (How much money should we start with at Whist). -It is impossible to lay down a rule, as to how much money you will want when you sit down to play Whist. Speaking roughly, you never ought to start with less than five times the amount of a bumper. This is the rule we prescribe for ourselves; but then we play with men of our own acquaintance, who, in case of need, will lend us more, and we have constantly found this sum insufficient. If you play as much as £10 on a rubber including the points, and the table bets, we think that you never ought to have less than £50 when you start, and £60 would be more reasonable, and if you indulge in £5 to £2, or in taking extra bets of £6 to £5, and so on, you ought to have a much larger margin. If your credit is however good, and you lose six rubbers right off, any one will lend you money, because to lose six rubbers is more than any one anticipates; but if on the loss of two or three rubbers, you have no money left, you ought to discontinue to play, or you will very shortly find men very unwilling to lend. Why should others bring money for your use? R. (Revoke).--A and B are partners. A does not follow suit when he could have done so. The trick is not turned, but Z, who won the trick, has played again, and B has followed suit. The Is A in time to save the revoke?-Ans. Certainly not. revoke can be completed by the turning of the trick, or by the revoking player, or his partner playing again. Are SOMERSET CLUB, BOSTON (Exposed cards, or leading out of turn.)-A and C and B and D are partners. The hand has been played to the ninth round. A leads a card, B follows, and C trumps with the nine, and D with the ten. C, thinking the nine the best trump, except the King and Queen (which he holds), and that he has taken the trick, lays on the table, first the King, and then the Queen (before B or D can stop him), but is warned in time to retain one card in his hand. these cards out of turn, or are they both exposed cards, or is the King a card led out of turn, and the Queen an exposed card, and can you exact the penalty for the King, as a lead out of turn, and the Queen for an exposed card, or is the penalty for each that of leads out of turn, or as exposed cards? Since the above was in type we have received the following:-A communication was sent to you for decision, under date of 4th December, without consultation with the parties concerned in the game. One of the parties objects to the wording of the same, and offers an amendment, in the following words :"Another member of the party, who was not present when the preceding communication was sent, objects to the way in which the question was stated, viz., C, thinking that the nine was good, began to lay the King and Queen on the table before Ď had taken the trick with the ten, and claims on that ground that they were exposed cards, but that no one of them was lead out of turn." I send this in addition that all parties may be satisfied. Will you also state in your answer what constitutes a lead out of turn. Though we have perhaps authority sufficiently good at hand to decide the questions, we have all concluded to leave the decision to you, as being the best authority to be had anywhere. I think I might with perfect fairness state that upon this play depends the fate of the game, for B called a lead from C, and his partner, D, made his only trump, thus saving the The other card C had in his hand was the only one of the suit left.-Ans. According to the statement as amended the game. player of the 9 showed, or placed on the table, the King and Queen. At the time the trick was not completed, and it was not his lead. We do not think, under these circumstances, the cards were led out of turn. In the first statement both cards, King and Queen, were exposed. In the second they are either exposed or detached, and for the purposes of this case it is immaterial whether they were exposed or detached. SOMERSET CLUB BOSTON. U.S. (Dummy dealing).—A and B are partners at Whist, C playing dummy. At the beginning of the rubber, C, instead of dealing for his dummy, deals for himself, and turns the trump card to himself. A and B then claimed that there had been no deal, on the ground that dummy should always deal first. Is this so?-Ans. Dummy's partner has not the choice of dealing for himself or for dummy; he must deal for dummy. KONGE. Many thanks for the Double Dummy problem. It appears to us too easy. It is not necessary to lead the Spade Knave. The point at Trick 4 is good. A. W. (Calling the Trump Card).—Mr. Clay was the best authority in England on questions of custom. If you look at Case 12 in the second edition of the Laws of Whist, you will find the following: "A deals, and neglects to take up the trump card; to the third round of trumps he does not follow suit, the trump card being still on the table and unobserved by him; the trick is turned and quitted. Has A revoked?— Decision. He has revoked. It is true that his adversaries might have called the trump card improperly left on the table, but their indulgence cannot have relieved him from the penalty of a second offence, viz. the not having played the trump card when he ought to have done so." Observe, here the trump card is left on the table, and because it is left on the table Mr. Clay says the adversaries might have called it, and he speaks of their indulgence in not so doing. This, we think, must be good evidence that custom cannot be said to have superseded the law, and that if you left your card for an unreasonable time on the table it might be properly called. E. W. W.-We shall be very glad to receive your promised Double Dummy Problem. If you fail in construction we shall be glad of the idea. W H. K. W., Calne (Fresh deal or mis-deal.)-B deals. (an adversary) during the deal accidentally overturns and exposes a card dealt to him. C (B's partner) claims a fresh deal, but B goes on dealing and mis-deals. Is C's claim good?-Ans. We do not think the dealer's partner has anything to do with the matter. Law 38 says, that a card exposed by either adversary gives that claim (the right to a new deal) to the dealer. We should therefore leave the dealer's partner out of the question. If you turn to law 45, you will find a mis-deal does not lose the deal if, during the dealing, either of the adversaries touch the cards. B is, in our opinion, entitled to a fresh deal, because W has touched the cards. PIQUET. R. B. (Standing deal with 11 cards and 8 in stock).—I, younger hand, have eleven cards dealt to me. I discard five, and take in six, on which my adversary claims the game because I have not left him three cards. Is this so? As he has thirteen cards to start with it seems to me that he ought to throw out three and take in two. -Ans. The elder hand having eleven cards can stand the deal or not at his option. It is assumed that the player elects to stand, but this is his choice. If he stands the deal, he must, under all circumstances, leave the The elder hand has taken in one younger hand three cards. of the cards of the younger hand, and for this he loses the game. He should have discarded 4 cards and taken in 5. The younger hand must discard one more than he takes in. In this case the player counted his cards, but forgot the law. It may suggest to young players the advisability of always counting their cards. The Westminster Papers. 1st FEBRUARY 1874. THE CHESS "The whisperings of our petty burgh." THE new year, although yet in its infancy, is fertile in the production of new Chess books. Already we have had the first part of the German Handbuch, by der Lasa; a collection of problems, by W. T. and J. Pierce, and Mr. Long has just issued a Supplement to his "Key to the Chess Openings." A new book, by Mr. Wormald, will be published in the course of a few weeks, and we understand that another work, upon a novel plan, is in active preparation. Mr. Long's book reached us too late for review this month. The title is "Positions in the Chess Openings most frequently played," and it is illustrated by copious diagrams. The price is seven shillings and sixpence, and the publisher is Mr. Morgan, 67 Barbican, London, E.C. The following letter upon the subject of the evergreen Evans' Gambit is from the author of the book referred to:To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS. - EVANS'S GAMBIT. SIR,-The following may, perhaps, prove of interest to the readers of your valuable “ In some of the periodicals lately the move for Black of Queen to K Bishop's third has been suggested, in reply to White's ninth move of Pawn to Queen's fifth, viz. : Black. 7 P to Q 3 8 B to Kt 3 9 Q to KB 3 notwithstanding, now wins the game by force, viz.: This is, I think, the winning move, which I have not seen anywhere. II K to K B sq best 12 R takes B best If he took with the King, White soon wins a piece; and if any other move, White wins also. : 13 Q takes Q R P best 16 Q to R 5 ch 16 P to K 3 best Very truly yours, T. LONG. I hope, for the sake of our "National Opening," that the above variation is correct. RATHGAR, Co. DUBLIN, 14th January 1874. The annual dinner of the City of London Club, always a noteworthy event in the annals of London Chess, will be held in the course of the present month, under the presidency of Mr. Rabbeth. Problems of more than four moves are not popular in the present day, and the cause is not far to seek. The majority of people play Chess and solve problems for amusement, and would find none in things recondite, among which are classed five, six and seven-move problems. We believe, with the author of the following letter, that the ordinary estimation of problems exceeding four moves is founded on a mistake. But let Mr. Andrews speak for himself: To the Editor of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS. DEAR SIR,-I was rejoiced to see, in this month's number of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS, a problem in nine moves. It seems to me that an unreasonable prejudice, founded upon a misconception, exists in the minds of many solvers of problems against positions in more than four or, at the utmost, five moves; and, if so, that it is one of the duties of an editor so able as yourself to educate that class of readers to a higher standard. The popular notion that a problem in six moves or upwards—say to ten-must inevitably be so much more difficult than one in four, does not tally with my experience-either as solver or composer. The reason is that the old field of ideas, available for short stratagems, having been worked to death, and originality rendered almost impossible, composers have been of late years more and more compelled to pile up variation upon variation-like Pelion upon Ossa-so that the solver, after going through all these, feels, as I have often done, a general impression of much ado about nothing and of relief in lieu of satisfaction when his |