to White's ingenious Q to K 6 ch, e.g. 32 K to R sq (best) 31 coup, which was Q to K 6 ch 32 B to K 3 33 B to Q 4 34 Q takes Q 35 K takes P, &c. This is merely a specimen variation to give an idea of the main notion. White can play better and especially he would leave the K Kt P alone. Nevertheless, Black with his B at Q 4 must always have some resource. (i) If 34 Q to Q 3, White can win by 35 Q takes Qch, K takes Q, 36 R takes B ch, K takes R, 37 P to Kt 6. GAME 64. (e) P to B 3 is much superior. (f) Ingenious, but not beneficial. P to Kt 4, threatening P to B 4 his best reMorePlayed in a match between the Jewish source, and a hopeful one too. over, as making room for his King, it would enable the Q P to be taken in some and North London Chess Clubs. White. Evans Gambit. Mr. MOCATTA. I P to K 4 5 P to B 3 10 K P takes P 12 B to Kt 2 13 Q Kt to Q 2 17 Q to B 2 18 Kt to K 5 19 Kt to K 4 20 Q to Q 2 21 Q takes Kt 22 Q to K Kt 3 23 Kt to Q B 5 24 Kt from B 5 Q3 25 Kt to K B 4 26 Kt takes B 27 Kt takes Kt 28 Q R to Q sq 29 Q to B 3 30 KR to K sq 31 R to K 4 cases. (g) Correctly played, and as followed up by the next two moves, giving White a decided, though possibly not a decisive, advantage. (h) Through the caprice of the position White has no more forcible continuation at his command. Q to K 6 is met by Q to R 8 ch, followed after R to K sq, by Q to Q 5, while if 35 P to Kt 3, P to Kt 4, 36 R to K 6, Q to R 8 ch, 37 K to Kt 2, Q to Q5, and again White cannot do much. Allgaier-Kieseritzki. White. Herr. ZUKERTORT. I P to K 4 2 P to KB 4 3 Kt to KB 3 4 P to K R 4 5 Kt to K 5 6 P to Q 4 7 B to B 4 8 Kt to QB 3 9 Kt takes BP 10 B takes R ch 11 B takes P 12 Q to Q 3 13 Castles KR (b) 14 B to Kt 5 15 Kt to Kt 5 16 Q to B 4 ch 17 R to B 7 18 9 to K B sq (d) 19 Kt takes QBP 20 Q takes Kt 21 Kt takes R 22 R to K B sq (f) 23 24 to Kt 5 R to B 7 Black. Professor WAYTE. 1 P to K 4 2 P takes P 3 P to K Kt 4 4 P to Kt 5 5 B to Kt 2 6 Kt to KB 3 7 Castles (a) 8 P to Q3 9 R takes Kt 10 K takes B 11 K to Kt sq 12 Kt to B 3 13 Kt to KR 4 14 Q to K sq (c) 15 Q to Q 2 16 K to R sq 17 Q to K 3 18 Kt takes P (e) 19 Kt to K 7 ch 20 Q takes R 21 P to Kt 3 22 Q to Kt 2 23 B to Q 2 25 K to R sq 26 R to B 8 ch 27 Q takes B ch 28 Q takes Q P ch 29 Q to Q 7 ch (i) Immediately fatal. He should have played R to K sq, as the ultimate result of which he would have Queen and three Pawns, against Queen and four 30 to 96 ch Pawns. Seeing that Black would 31 B to Q 2 preserve his important QR P, his 32 Q to Q 3 defeat could not be regarded as by any means a foregone conclusion. (j) Elegant, and very effective, as the opponent at once admits. GAME 65. 33 Kt to B 7 38 P to Kt 3 29 K to Kt 3 30 Kt to B 3 31 B to K 4 32 B takes P 34 Q to Kt 5 ch 35 B to B 4 36 Kt takes Q (i) 37 Kt to B 7 39 Kt to K 6 40 B to K 3 44 K to Kt 2 33 K to R 4 34 Q to K 4 35 Q takes Q 36 P to Q R 3 37 P to R 4 38 B to Q 5 39 B to B 6 40 Kt to Q 4 41 Kt takes Kt 42 B to Q 5 43 K to Kt 3 44 K to B 4 Played in the International Correspon- 41 Kt to B 4 ch dence Tourney between Mr. W. Nash, St. 42 B takes Kt Neots, England, and Mr. J. C. Romeyn, 43 P to R 4 Kingston City, New York. (a) By way of variety, I suppose, and possibly enough somewhat tired of P to Q4. (b) I feel quite certain that Castling on the Queen's side is preferable, my reason being that White has that way more freedom and safety while Black has a confined position and is reduced to being almost a If then 13 Kt to K R 4, White's reply is 14 spectator of his opponent's operations. to Kt 5, followed after either Q to Q 2 or B to B 3, by Q to K 3. B (c) Q to Q 2, at once is far superior. (d) 18 Q takes Q, followed by 19 R takes B, and 20 P to Q 5, seems sufficiently satisfactory. (e) Played with excellent judgment, and achieving the desired result of sustaining the least loss. (f) I favour 22 Q to Q 3. (g) Here Professor Wayte had a forced draw, an opportunity for not making use of which he ought to have suffered, e.g. 25 B takes Q, 26 R takes Q, whereupon Kt draws by perpetual check. (h) Here Zukertort makes a slip not to be expected from him of all men, for he overlooks a mate in two moves, viz.: 27 B to R 6 ch, and 28 Q mates. also evident that Black had not seen this when he played 25 Q takes K P. It is 14 K to Q sq and 15 K Kt takes B 15 Kt takes Kt 16 Kt takes Kt 17 Q to B 4 (f) 18 K to Q 2 16 Kt to K 5 17 Kt to B 7 ch 18 B to K 6 ch (g) And White resigns (a) Introduced by Zukertort, and decidedly the best reply to White's last. Indeed 5 Kt to B 5 always a bizarre unsound looking move, can no longer, expect, be played. I It (b) Also a strong continuation. requires but a glance at the board to see the superiority of Black's position, the Q B coming out, and afterwards the play of the Q R. (c) Ill judged. B to K 2 is best, but 9 B to K Kt 5 would still be an effective move for Black. (d) Ingeniously conceived and well worth trying, seeing that otherwise the game is lost. It will be noticed that P takes B leads to a mate in two, while 13 K to Q 2 would be unavailing on account of 13 B takes B, 14 either Kt takes B, Kt takes Kt, 15 Kt takes Kt, Kt to K 5 ch, winning the Queen. (e) Correctly played, for the check at R 6 would prevent B takes B from yield. ing any profit. (f) There are no means of saving the Queen. (g) This game, which has been exceed. ingly well played by Professor Wayte, is a good illustration of the weakness of Kt 5 to B 5. THE "WESTMINSTER PAPERS" LOWENTHAL PROBLEM TOURNEY. The lists in this competition were closed for composers resident in the United Kingdom on the 20th ultimo, down to which date we had received thirteen sets of problems bearing the following mottoes : In order to secure the co-operation of our readers in the examination of these problems, we offer a choice of Chess books, value £2, as a prize for the best, and a copy of Mr. Miles' "Chess Gems" for the second best solutions and reviews sent in during the progress of the tourney. The reviews should reach us not later than the 25th of each month and should be written on one side of the paper only. ON WHIST SIGNALS. To the Editor of THE WESTMinster Papers. SIR,-Preliminary remarks-Whist defined-Whist signals explained with a few examples in illustration-Reasons in favor of their extension and their actual progressive increase to the present time-On signalling for trumps and the hard and fast rule as laid down in Baldwin's treatise on this head, denied-Query whether the lead of and the call for trumps are not correlative?-Objections to this signal answered. Some slight allusion recently made in your Whist Jottings to Whist Signals have led me to consider this subject at large, and to deal with it in a much more comprehensive manner than I have yet seen it treated. In the club rooms we hear daily mention of signalling for trumps, but I strongly suspect but few players are aware that from the moment they sit down to play a rubber they are by far the greater portion of their time engaged in signalling. What is Whist? is a question that would puzzle many conversant with the game to explain; merely to say it is a trick-making game is insufficient, as this definition would apply to many other games, as for instance to Loo and Ecarte; and were it not that at the latter the King of trumps reckoned as a point and a flush took the pool at the former and honours counted at Whist, these would all three be pure trick-making games; if however, to the term of trick-making it be added that in order to win the greatest number of tricks we must ascertain and play to the position of the cards all round, we have, as near I believe we can express it, the definition of Whist. I have already in a previous article (see vol. 9 p. 215), pointed out the distinction between Whist and Single and Double Dummy. It is impossible that the first can be played with anything like that degree of certainty of making the most of the partnership hands that the last can be. For instance, take No. 100 from among many of the beautiful Double Dummy Problems of Mr Frederic H. Lewis. I shewed in a note to its solution in the following No. of these PAPERS that that game could have been played in the best manner only by the cards being led in a particular order from the very outset of the game, which could not have been done had it been played as a Whist hand in the usual way. Again, in the article just referred to, I commented on the Whist hand, No. 152 being lost by X and Z, through their proper observance of Whist rules, and which, as good players, they would have saved had it been a Double Dummy hand. All we can do, is (as I remarked in that article) to approach as near in our play at Whist to that of Double Dummy as we can, and this is to be principally achieved through the medium of card signals. We have thus at Whist a double system of play existing side by side, one depending upon the theoretical principles for making the greatest number of tricks of an ever varying nature, according to the shifting circumstances (and which, for brevity's sake I will term the trick-making system), the other being a collection of arbitrary rules of a fixed character, recognised and adopted in practice by all good players. The great mass of these arbitrary rules are Whist signals, and consist in cards being played by all the hands in a particular order, and putting upon them respectively a forced construction either as to what must positively, or may alternatively, or cannot possibly follow in the same suit in the hand so playing them. To illustrate my meaning I will select a few examples. Take the case of a high sequence in any hand at Double Dummy it is immaterial, but at Whist it is of great importance which of the sequence is played first. Again suppose a four and a five of a suit to be in the same hand, at Double Dummy either may be played first indifferently, but not so at Whist. I forbear giving the reasons, as of course they must be apparent to all my readerrs. Now let us take the case of an original lead from a Queen; this if it be from strength must proceed fom a tierce at least, if from weakness it must come from either Queen only, or Queen, Knave, or Queen, Knave and another, or Queen and one other card; It cannot be from Queen and two low cards, as the arbitrary rule in the last instance is to lead the lowest; but here, if Frozzle's argument in favour of leading the Queen upon principle be right, then this arbitrary rule should be altered; at all events when my partner by his discard shews this to be his best suit, it is my practice to lead out the Queen. I will not fatigue the reader with any more examples with which he must be familiar. Thus it appears that by far the largest number of our Whist signals and they are multitude - are coeval with the existence of Whist, at least since Hoyle's time, and the experience of a lengthened period, now going on for a century and a half, has proved they are generally not only coincident with but auxiliary to and in aid of trick-making, although (as I have hereinbefore instanced) they may occasionally be the cause of losing tricks. As their immediate object is to give information, with the ulterior one of assisting us to play to position, it logically follows the greater the number of Whist signals the more it conduces to the end we have in view, viz., that of making the greatest number of tricks. Accordingly this process has been continually going on. Thus in the generation following that of Hoyle, we find good old Mathews, in his written maxims, dwelling most emphatically on the expediency of leading the highest of a suit containing but three low cards, the late Mr. Clay going so far as to state that he refused to consider any one a player who neglected this rule. Next followed the rule that with the Ace and King only of a suit the Ace should be led out first. I think this rule should be extended to all the other hands. It cannot be interpreted as a trump signal, for I agree with the saying that any player who calls for trumps and does not play one when he gets the lead in his hand is a fool for his pains. Next came the penulti mate card leads, from a suit of five or more, the reasons in its favour being well set out in the appendix B to Cavendish's last edition. I have been but very recently verbally informed of the introduction of a Whist signal not yet published; and that is from a suit of Ace, Queen, Knave and two or more cards in it, first to lead the Ace and then the Knave. I concur, as it can only proceed from such a lead, or Ace and Knave only. For the recognised lead from Ace, Queen, Knave, or those cards and another, is first the Ace and then the Queen; from Ace and two or three more cards, whatever they may be, barring the Queen, the lowest card is first led; from Ace, Knave to five at least in the suit, it is usual to lead first the Ace and then the lowest of the sequence, or if no sequence the penultimate card. It will often happen that which is a signal at one time is not so at another, according to the circumstances of the game. Thus late in the hand a player will throw away from a suit, and in the only remaining one not yet led his partner may have the King and another low one only. The rule is to lead up the King first and it would be wrong to infer the Queen is behind it. It is only a short time ago I witnessed a good player lose a game by nor leading out his Ace and then the Queen of a suit in which he had only those two cards, the King, guarded, being in the adversaries hand to his left, but which his partner by his discard had shown to be his best suit. The meaning of a signal is often governed by the locus in quo principle. For example, a Knave as an original lead generally means strength, coming up from the same hand as a second it most commonly signifies the reverse, I have treated the rule of originally leading from one's strongest suit as an abitrary one, because it by no means follow that this is a correct lead at double at Double Dummy. I now pass on to that very important signal, the call for trumps. Although this at first sight seems the most artificial of all our Whist signals, it is really the least so. It is a consequence of good play. It originated in players formerly throwing away a high card when they had a lower one, to stop the adversaries continuing a suit, which they might be compelled to ruff, when they had trumps of that power, which if not forced out would in all probability enable them to bring in ultimately their strong plain suit. After a time this ruse became well understood, and accordingly on the one hand the adversaries would try to force them, whilst on the other their partners would not only forbear doing so, but lead a trump as soon as they got in, and if weak in them a strenghtening card, Thus the principle of signalling for trumps was acted upon before it became recognised as such. The transition to the now well defined signal was easy and natural. Doubtless the strength in trumps deemed requisite by the players of the old school practising the above-mentioned ruse, was that laid down in Baldwin's Treatise, as necessary for the trump signal. But Whist, like history, has its episodes, and a couple of remarkable incidents have caused me to reflect much on this matter, and I have now arrived at the conclusion, there is no such hard and fast rule. One of these incidents was this. A player having a very fine hand but with only two trumps and no honour, sigalled for the lead of them, which was answered and came off very successfully. At the conclusion of the hand there was a general exclaimation, amid much merriment, "there is no such game." The other incident occurred whilst I myself was engaged in play at the table. Seeing my partner with some strength in plain suits, although with but a poor hand myself out of trumps, in which I had considerable strength. I ventured to lead a low one, but finding my partner played a sixth or seven as his highest winning card, the next time, when I somewhat unexpectedly got in with a ten of a plain suit, I desisted leading a trump again. At the conclusion of the hand, he said to me in a rather asperse tone "Sir, we missed that game through you." "How?" I replied in astonishment. "Why, you did not go on playing trumps when I signalled to you to do so." Now he is not only a very sound player, but is thoroughly well up to bookwork, and prides himself upon not being led away by mere authority unless he is convinced by the reasons given. I never looked for, and therefore missed the signal, as I was till then a slavish follower of the late Mr. Clay's rule on the trump signal. It so happened he had a most magnificent hand, and he quite satisfied me he was right in his remark. I regret to say I was unable to note down these hands, as the tricks were hurriedly mixed up. They would indeed have been in my opinion a very valuable contribution to Whist hands. Be it remembered that the great and main object of trumps is twofold:-1st. Aggressive-i.e., to ruff the adversaries winning cards; 2nd. Defensive-i.e., to prevent our own or partner's plain suits being trumped, and we should then lead out trumps irrespective of strength in them, making the possible sacrifice of the loss of a trick or two in the last-mentioned quite a matter of secondary consideration to trick-making in the other suits, and such, in fact, is the practice. For precisely the same reason we should signal for trumps, though very weak in them; it may be urged in this case that through our partner leading to our weak signal the loss of at least a certain trick is incurred; but then, on the other hand, our partner may gain a trick on our return of the trump lead which otherwise he would not have done, and it may be added that even when we signal with strength the finesse is frequently against us; but I repeat such must be the strength in our plain suits, the ascertained position of the cards, the state of the score, and other surrounding circumstances, that we must be prepared to sacrifice our trump suit. Having thus explained the primary use of trumps, I will observe that it will sometimes happen this suit is reduced to a level with the plain ones when the cards are pretty evenly distributed all round. Upon these grounds I have arrived at the conclusion that leading trumps and signalling for them are co-extensive, with the exception that the lead is occasionally a forced one, but that there is no such thing as a compulsory signal. If my reasoning should appear too abstruse, the verification of this principle may be ascertained by an analysis of published Whist and Double Dummy hands, a long and tedious process I admit, since in accordance with the principles of trick-making trumps are by no means usually and voluntarily led or signalled for. I hope that the nickname of Blue Peter, as applied to the trump signal, will disappear from our Whist vocabulary, as it is derogatory to it as a game of skill, and that the name of Peter, or of Peter Simple, will be applied and confined to those players who lead or signal for trumps when they ought not, as I believe the fear of this stigna will have the effect of stopping these nuisances, even probably of deterring weak players signalling when they ought; better so, of two evils choose the least. The late Mr. Clay bitterly regretted the introduction of this signal, but at the same time admitted it was ineradicable; but independent of all reasoning in its favour, the very fact of its being persevered in for so many years by our best players, demonstrates its expediency and utility. The complaint that so many tricks are lost through it is not attributable to the signal, but to the players; as well may one blame the introduction of railway signals, because sometimes the men in charge of them are careless or ignorant of the working of them; or as well may we find fault with painting as an art, because so many professed artists produce such rubbish. The answer to the objection that it complicates the game is, that the more judgment, skill, and attention are required, the higher any game must stand in public estimation as one of intellectual recreation. I remember reading some years ago in these PAPERS that it was unfair, but this objection has long since been disposed of by the argument that it is open to all to learn the nature of it, and watch for it is the course of play. I recommend when there is no apparent reason to the contrary, that the trump signal should be obeyed, however weak a player the party so signalling should be, however ignorant he may be of its use, and however hardened as to be indifferent about his being classed among the Peter Simples, as at all events the responsibility of the consequences rests with him. Were it not for the existence of the trump suit, Whist would lose a great portion of its charm and popularity, and would rank much lower as a game of skill. E. J. SIR,-No doubt it has come to your knowledge from time to time, by the gossip of the clubs and other means, that there are at large a given number of card players who are defaulters. Here are the names of three . . Will you publish them? Yours, &c., A CLUB SECRETARY. [We shall not. We could not insert the names of these three without inserting one or more every month. No doubt it would be convenient to have a list of such members, so that committees of clubs or club secretaries might ascertain if anything were known against a candidate for admission to a club, and we should be glad of a complete list for private use. We know several instances of defaulters at one club gaining admission to another, and no doubt some of these will become defaulters again. Club committees cannot make very particular inquiries into a man's antecedents. They must trust to the proposer and seconder, and everyone knows how easy it is for a plausible man to become apparently intimate with another and to induce that other to ask him to join his club. The better a man is known the less chance he possesses of getting into a good club. Where a nobody gets in a Walter is rejected. At card clubs the possession of principle and principal are essential ingredients. The possession of money is a safeguard against cheating, and therefore a man of position, or apparent position, is generally considered eligible, but now-a-days we meet men of apparent wealth, whose antecedents are unknown. To give the names in print of defaulters seems at first sight easy, but a careless exercise of the power we possess might cause an intense amount of misery and injustice. A man may not be able to pay to-day who does pay to-morrow. Wrong, from a card player's point of view, but not to be classed with the men who do not intend to pay when they sit down. Men are always uncharitable, and when they lose they are too apt to think the result has been brought about by malfeasance. No one has a right to refer to a particular person, either by name or inuendo, except on something like a judicial inquiry, an inquiry that should not be imperfect and one-sided. We think some of our contemporaries exceed the limits of a free press at the present time as regards the men who make heavy losses at play. Of course, now that the love of scandal is so great, there will be panderers to the public appetite, and we suggest to our correspondent that the paper which exposed the usurers (in some respects unfairly we think) would not object on sufficient evidence to make public the names of card defaulters or card sharpers. Judiciously done by a careful lawyer, capable of judging the value of evidence, it might be for the good of the community to publish such a list. We have not the necessary time at our disposal, and we have not sufficient means to stand the racket of actions at law for the good of the community.-ED. W. P.] |