NOTES TO HAND, 170.

2. Z knows that B has either D Q or D Kn, or both, or no more.

3. At this point we should have still cleared the C suit before leading trump.

4. The discard of the D 9 here is bad. He should have discarded a Club. His strength lies in Hearts, and he should not have exhibited his weakness in D too soon to the adversaries when his partner was void.

5. He continues the trump to draw two for one.

6. Surely Z should here clear the Club suit. He must make two by cards, even if B has Kn Q of Diamonds, by refusing to trump, and discarding the two small Hearts. B takes the only opportunity of letting in his partner by discarding the Q.

7. Behold the result! By giving X the chance of the discard of which he availed himself the more readily, on account of the discard by X of D 9, A brings in 4 Diamonds. If, at trick 6, Z had played C K, A and B could have made but three tricks, CA and D K and Q; for, of course, Z would not have trumped the D Q. Now they make six tricks, and save the game.

NOTES TO HAND, 171.

3. Trusting to his partner to protect the Heart suit, and being strong in both the other plain suits, B leads trumps.

4. A properly waits for the finesse, but why continue the Heart suit, the correct card here, we think, was SQ.

5. X having no rentrée card, gives a discard. He properly abstains from continuing with H A. The discard of S 10 shews that Z has great numerical strength in his original lead.

7. B is in a difficult position. He knows H A to be with X, but he knows also that X has probably no Diamond, he can have only D 7. As A continued the Heart suit, he ought to be strong in trumps, and probably wants to finesse. B, therefore, continues trump. 8. As Z discarded S 10, B discards S Kn, to show that his lowest Spade is equal to the Kn.

9. Acting upon this hint, A plays SQ.

10. Z can count B's hand. If he leads the winning trump, and draws the C 2 from A, he can then only play D, and B will bring in his Spades.

11. B here properly plays Sp 8, if Z passes it, B continues with K and A, getting the discard of the H, Z loses the gameZ is not to be trapped. He knows, wherever S K is, he can save the game by forcing A, who has the losing Heart.

NOTES TO HAND, 172.

1. With such all round strength, the trump is the proper lead.

Z is now

5. A continues with Sp. A. If B is void, he is drawing 2 for one, and if B has Sp. 2, all the trumps will fall. left with the turn-up, thirteenth trump. It is difficult to decide which is the proper discard for B, but he discards D, as the King is the only card he can possibly make, and it is better for the adversaries to play it.

6. A most properly keeps back the winning heart.

9. A can now count Z's hand. By passing the H Kn, he knows that Z can get in only by trumping, as he is left with but one Diamond, of which he himself holds the Ace. If he takes with H Q, he at once lets in Z for the small Hearts.

11. X knows it is immaterial whether he heads the D 10 or not, and takes the almost impossible chance of the D K falling.

IF you the modern game of Whist would Know,
From this great principle its precepts flow :
Treat your own hand as to your partner's joined,
And play not one alone, but both combined.
Your first lead makes your partner understand

The suit predominating in your hand,

WHIST.

BY AN

And hence there is necessity the strongest
That your first lead be from your suit that's longest.
In this with Ace and King, lead King then Ace;
With King and Queen, King also has first place.

With Ace, Queen, Knave, lead Ace and then the Queen;
With Ace, four small ones, Ace should first be seen;
With Queen, Knave, ten, you let the Queen precede,
In other cases you the lowest lead,

Ere

you return your friend's, your own suit play,
But Trumps you must return without delay.
When you return your partner's lead take pains
To lead him back the best your hand contains,
If you received not more than three at first;
If you had more you may return the worst.
But if you hold the master card, your're bound
In any case to play it second round.

Whene'er you want to lead 'tis seldom wrong
To lead up to the weak, or through the strong.

"OLD HAND.”

If second hand your lowest should be played,
Unless you mean "Trumps Signal" to be made;
Or if you've King and Queen, or Ace and King,
Lowest of these would be the proper thing.

Mind well the rules for Trumps, you'll often need them,
When you hold Five 'tis always right to lead them,
Or if the lead won't come in time to you,
Then signal to your partner so to do.
Watch also for your partner's Trump request,
To which with less than Four play out your best.
To lead through honours is indifferent bad play,
Unless you want the Trump suit cleared away.
When second hand a doubtful trick you see
Don't Trump it if you hold more Trumps than three;
But having three or less Trump fearlessly.
When weak in Trumps don't force your friend,

But always force the adverse strong Trump hand.

For sequences stern Custom has decreed
The lowest you must play if you don't lead;
When you discard weak suits you ought to choose,
For strong ones are too valuable to lose;
Though now-a-day some clever people say
Your strong suit is the one to throw away.

Whitehall Review.

WHIST JOTTINGS.

DIFFICULTIES.

We do not suppose that the grumbling Whist players ever reflect, because if they did we cannot make out why they never see anyone's difficulties, nay, we doubt if they see their own. Is is possible that they live in a fool's paradise and believe that they always play the correct card? If this be so, there is an end of the matter. They are more than human, and tests err. The Whist player who loves the game does so because of its doubts and difficulties, and he knows that to play the right card always is absolutely impossible. He knows that the game depends on the proper exercise of the judgment of the player, and that if no judgment were required there would be no object in trying to play well, for we should all play alike-all play perfectly. Whist more resembles the Comedy of Errors than this. Everyone plays inaccurately. Everyone plays inaccurately. One man may lead trumps at the right time and win, and another will lead trumps and lose. No one can lay down any absolute or perfect rule that will always succeed. There will probably occur every hand a point which requires the exercise of the reasoning faculties. A player may have the best trump, and another one is in an adversary's hand, and on the exercise of his judgment the leader conceives it best not to draw the trump. A man with an unreflective mind will say always draw the trump, but with the exercise of a little ingenuity he will find many instances where to do so is fatal, and the game is lost that could have been saved.

Again it sometimes happen that it is good play to lead out the winning card of your adversary's suit; on the other hand it is generally wrong to do so. In each case the knowledge of the position of the other cards is necessary to form a correct judgment. Yet the grumbler always finds fault for not leading it out, or for leading it out if your judgment happen to turn out wrong. To my mind this is simply preposterous. No one would find fault with another for guessing wrong at heads or tails, and there are many cases when it is but an even chance which is the right course. In the exercise of our judgment we are governed by a sense of responsibility, the effect of which may lose our partner's money, but which at the same time loses our own. Each man according to his light plays his best, and some regard should be paid to his position and knowledge, not only his general knowledge of the game, but of his means of acquiring the necessary information to guide him to a right conclusion, and to my mind nothing is more annoying than being criticised for bad play from another person's knowledge. Players never will see how much information one man has compared with that of the player criticised. How difficult is the position of the one compared with that of the other. Nor do I think that they even reflect that the judgment needful for the solution of the problem before us has to be brought to bear on the instant. A problem that a slow player would solve in five minutes is too difficult for him to do in half a moment or a second of time. We hear of the difficulty in playing fifteen moves an hour at Chess, and some have advocated for great occasions ten moves, which, taking into account the moves of the adversary during which the player can reflect and study his position, is nearly equal to two hours. Again, at this game, the player in a great tourney has studied nearly every published game; they know the opening moves by heart, and the player having the move knows the game he intends to play. Yet with all these advantages the Chess player requires fifty times more for his move than would be tolerated at the Whist table. And at the latter game the exact position of the cards may never have occurred before. Yet we read that from the loss of something less than an hour Blackburne was beaten by McKenzie, not on his merits, but by being beaten by loss of time. And this is the man that can play blindfold against any number of players, and who has published some of the most brilliant combinations that have ever been made by man over the board; a man, moreover, who can play with the speed of lightning when so inclined. We do not suppose anyone will pretend that McKenzie in the first ten moves hit on a new move that he had not seen before, yet without something of the sort we cannot, for the life of us, understand the morbid craving for time, common to so many good players. At any rate at Whist this is not tolerated. The problem must be solved then. Judg. ment exercised in a moment of time, and because we decide wrong, i.e., play wrong, we get abused. Our valued contributor gives us this month three examples, showing the consequences that sometimes occur from playing out the winning trump, keeping back the winning trump and keeping back the best of a plain suit, which is commended to our readers. Similar positions must have occurred to old players, and some of them will remember the instances where, by taking the wrong course, they lost their game.

At a time when so many players lead from weakness, when false cards are so common, we do not know whether players make allowances to other players for misplacing the position of the cards. We played yesterday and our partner for the second round of trumps dropped the 5. We got on, and we knew that we could draw the two trumps, because we knew that the second hand had the Q and the fourth the 3. We played the best trump and drew the 3 from our partner's hand, a card that was of great value. We saw another player finesse King Knave with only one trump, and when the King appeared, his partner led trumps, on the assumption that he must be strong in trumps to take this liberty. Fancy a player with one trump finessing King Knave in his partner's suit. When weak make every trump you can, help your partner in every way you can. Do not force him to change his tactics. It is for him to win or save the game, not you, and you take the chance of deceiving him in the suit that is most important to him.

To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR,-Why are games amusing? and why can some games be played for love and others not?

The question why is a game amusing is probably not often asked. It is one of those questions that are taken for granted. It is assumed that, of course, games are amusing and business is troublesome. No doubt a thing would not be called a game unless it were amusing, but still it is always worth while to enquire into the reasons of things, and when the question now being treated of is asked, it will be perceived that it is not quite so easy to give an off-hand answer to it as might be supposed.

I believe that in their essence a game and a business are the same. In the course of evolution and the struggle for existence, man has had to exert himself and to overcome difficulties. Painful as exertion and the fighting with enemies and obstacles were at first, gradually a sense of gratification at achieving victory would develop itself, and man would take a pleasure in removing difficulties and shewing skill and mastery. What was done at first from necessity would come to be done for mere pleasure; and, I believe, that here we have the explanation of a game being amusing. The amusement arises from the gratification we feel in the consciousness of skill in overcoming a difficulty, or from the gratification we experience when something turns up in our favour. The conditions, however, which distinguish a game from a business are these. A game must not be too serious a matter, and the result of it must not be such that it may produce serious anxiety. Success or failure in business involves serious issues; our living and our enjoyments depend on it. But this is not, or should not be, the case with a game. When it is, it is no longer a game but business, or else gambling.

But now comes the second question placed at the head of these remarks. Why must some games be played for money, and why can some be played for love? The answer to this is, I believe, that it entirely depends upon how much skill and how much chance are involved. A game like Chess, which may be said to be one entirely of skill can be played without any stake depending on the result, but a game like Baccarat, which is all chance, must be played for some stake, or the proceeding would be absurd. Now Whist must be played for stakes, because it is a mixed game of skill and chance, and Mr. Proctor, as he admits in his recent article in the Echo on gambling, knows little about Whist when he says that so excellent a game ought to be played without stakes. The fact is, Whist cannot be properly played unless something depends on the result. The object of playing well is to win, but I think it is obvious that if nothing depended on winning or losing, the play would not be good but simply eccentric, and players would make the most marvellous finesses and play the most extraordinary cards, just to see what would happen, and to gain ignorant applause when anything more than usually outrageous came off.

The matters I have treated of could of course be dealt with more elaborately, but I trust I have said enough to point out the direction in which answers to the questions which have been raised should be sought.-H. M. P.

To the Editor of "THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS."

SIR, I was asked to send you the following question some short time ago: "A exposes a card, X calls a suit from B, B pays no attention to the call, and A takes up his card: has he a right to do so?" You thought he had, and as X has most illegally given his partner a straight tip, and in my humble opinion had his penalty, I quite agree with you, but other people do not. N.B. With regard to that straight tip, it in no way excuses X's conduct for his friends to assure me that he is a blundering idiot, who never knows what he is doing, but who means no harm; cela va sans dire, (of course I only refer to the last part of the paragraph, the remainder of it X and his friends must settle among themselves) we are all perfectly aware that from A to Z, no letter would unfairly take advantage of another in anyway, and I never heard of any letter continuing to play Whist on any other terms; but the other people say a card once exposed can never be taken up. If this be so, it has a very important bearing on the current controversy, respecting the eternity of punishment, in fact it settles the matter off-hand-they say it must be left on the table for the united intelligence of X and Z to take shies at, as if it was an Aunt Sally-till they hit upon a legal penalty; the shot my dear old friend, the fair average player, invariably makes, is to cry out at the top of his voice "pass it!" and he continues to be as much surprised when told he is wrong as if he had never done so before; I am not at all certain that he too has not had his penalty; still as the case is not distinctly provided for in the laws of Whist—which, if they were much clearer and better drawn than they are, would yet not be able to cover every stupidity under the sun-will you kindly give the reasons for the faith that is in you and oblige PEMBRIDGE.

To the Editor of the "WESTMINSTER PAPERS."

DEAR SIR,-I am a very regular reader of your periodical, and I am also very fond of the study of the game of Whist. I may also say that having paid some little attention to the laws, and noted my "Cavendish" with decisions from the "WESTMINSTER PAPERS" and the Field, I am sometimes called upon to decide questions that arise in my presence.

Will you kindly oblige me by giving me in your answers to correspondents, where I am nearly certain to see it, a brief explanation of the terms "incorrect and imperfect" in laws 37, I.; 44 III., 2 para., 47.

I am well acquainted with your decisions in your Vol. X. (August, 1877, p. 73; November, 1877, p. 130;) but these are given in consequence of the words, "during the play," and because these laws 46 and 47 apply. You there decide that "incorrect and imperfect" mean only a pack with duplicate cards, e.g.: two Aces of Clubs, &c., &c., and consequently a pack with more than 52 cards.

But if the dealer whilst in the act of dealing finds his pack is one (or more cards) short (which card, or cards, is found in the other pack or box as your case) does he lose his deal by misdeal, or can he deal again (law 44, III., both paras.)? I know there is no misdeal with an" imperfect " pack, but you decide "imperfect " to mean more than (not less than) 52 cards or duplicate cards, in order to make the laws agree.

It seems to me that a dealer is or ought to be just as responsible and liable to penalty for dealing with an incorrect and imperfect pack as a player is for not counting his cards, and liable to revoke penalty because he plays with a number short of 13. Because the dealer by his negligence actually puts a player into a position where negligence also renders him liable to a penalty, and because, if he deals with a short number of cards the turn up card will not rightly come to himself (para. 1. III., law 44).

If this is so, "imperfect and incorrect" pack must mean the same in every case (that is more than 52, or duplicate cards), and would then fairly give the dealer a right to deal again.

Since your decision above quoted, I have heard many arguments on the point, and I should like to know if you consider the dealer misdeals or is entitled to deal again when some of the pack are missed in the other pack. The questions may be put shortly, thus:

1. Do the words "during the deal" alter the meaning of "incorrect and imperfect," law 37, compare law 44, III, para. 2, "imperfect," and law 47?

2. Do "incorrect and imperfect" mean always more than (not less than) 52 cards, or duplicate cards?

3. Does the dealer misdeal if he deals with 51 or a less number of cards (44, III., 2 para, " imperfect ") ?

4. Is the penalty of a misdeal under the above circumstances, laid down in law 44 III., 1 para., when i.e., the turn up card does not rightly and in turn come to the dealer?

Will you also kindly answer these two questions :

6. Is it a misdeal if (after the cards are cut) the dealer drops a large portion of the pack under the table or on the table, so that they cannot be put together exactly as they were cut. Law 36?

7. Is it a misdeal if the dealer puts the wrong portion on the top, so that there is in reality no cutting of the pack? Hoping you will excuse my troubling you with what may seem to you a very trifling matter,

[1. A duty devolves by law on the players to count their cards, but no such duty devolves on the dealer to count the pack. The game would be intolerable if we had to count the pack every time. There must be a new deal if the pack be proved to be incorrect or imperfect. 2. A pack may be imperfect or incorrect by having a card short, or from having a duplicate card, or from having a card of the other pack in it. 3 If the dealer deals with 51 cards, he deals again. 4. How with 51 cards the last card can come to the dealer, we have never yet fathomed. We know that it does come; but with 48 cards the trick would come to the last player naturally, and we have it on record that the father of Cavendish won a rubber with 48 cards, all the players being good players, and all alleging that they had counted their cards. However, if the last card does come to the dealer, if neither he nor any of the players notice any irregularity at the deal, the deal stands; three players have 13 cards and the other 12. If the holder of 12 does not find it out, the missing card is adjudged to be his, and he is answerable for the consequences. Law 46 is a substantive law that overrides any question as to imperfect or incorrect. It says, should three players have their right number of cards, the fourth less then 13, the deal stands good. 5. Mr. Clay decided in favour of a new cut. 6. Misdeal. -ED. W. P.]

DOUBLE DUMMY PROBLEM-No. 142.

The solution of this problem is withheld for another month.