If a man has a hobby he is sure to ride it to death. Every time he can lead a lowest but one, no matter what is the state of the game and score, that lead he is sure to make, and we believe there are some neophytes who would lose their money with pleasure if they could only tell their partner afterwards that they had led the lowest but one. Every change in this game, except the Peter, gives more work for the brain, and the reasoning can only be sound in so far as we realize the peculiarities of the players. Hence Whist, instead of being a pure science, is more and more, and year by year a game of brag, a game for gambling, a game in which we have to study the idiosyncracies of the players as well as the cards themselves. We have to deduce from imperfect data, and when our inference is wrong we have a great chance of a scolding from an infuriated partner. Whist was always a difficult game, and the players do not seem to see that changes in it may make it more difficult.

It is a very odd thing that Whist should be a medium for gambling. A poker-player may be inferior to his neighbour, but that is his own fault or misfortune. If he loses, he has only himself to thank for it; but at Whist you are blessed or cursed, as may be, with a partner, and to get two players perfectly equal to any other two players is quite impossible. One side or the other is sure to be at a disadvantage, and the value of the disadvantage is an unknown and unascertained quantity. At Roulette or Baccarat, the advantage to the table or to the dealer is well known or easily calculated. In the one case, the odds are known, and in the other, they are only not known because the dealer's skill and judgment are not known; but given a man of good judgment as dealer and the advantage in his favour is demonstrable. If the same four players always played at Whist together, cutting in and out, in order, there would still be a difference, because A may play well with B, and very ill with C, so that, by no combination, can the betting be got quite even, and the betting is hardly ever anything but even. Again, the skill formerly told in favour of a point; but, inasmuch as the money to be gained by a point is as nothing compared to the bet on the rubber, no one cares for a point. We play now only for two objects-viz., To save or win the game. These are the objects ever before our eyes, so that the game is changed from the good old game of our youth, when the gain or loss of a point was the primary object we had in view. Now it is not only secondary, but hardly of any consequence. Some players will not recognize the change in the system of play, and some will not acknowledge that if they have £20 on a rubber and the points are Is., that they ought not to play as they were formerly accustomed to play, but if they are to win they must recognize all facts, they must look to the stakes as well as to the players and the cards, and if all this creates a greater strain on their minds than formerly, they must remember that the stakes are larger; that they must observe more closely; that they must concentrate their attention on the matter on hand, and to do so with effect they must keep their temper, no matter what provocation they receive. If their partner is disagreeable and makes rude remarks, still keep your temper. If not for his sake, for your own.

CHARGE OF CHEATING AT CARDS.

La France Nouvelle asserted that M. Challemel Lacour (a most distinguished French Senator), had been expelled from his Club for cheating at cards, on which proceedings were taken before the Correctional Tribunal for libel. The prosecutor stated that he was not a member of any Club, and had never played cards. The Court awarded M. Challemel 10,000 francs damages, and costs, and further inflicted a fine of 2,000 francs on the libeller. This is a good example, and we should like to see the law of this country assimilated to that of France. The prosecutor was not cross-examined as to whether his great grandmamma had poisoned his mother, as he certainly would have been before our Lord Mayor. Technically the question would be inadmissible, but it would be permitted as referring to the prosecutor's credibility. We wish the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen and their esteemed chief clerk would try to imitate the example of the Correctional Tribunal, and do something to put down libels, and exercise some influence over the cross-examination of the prosecutor.

Will the Lord Mayor notice that the case was not adjourned? It was heard at one sitting. Here the case would have been adjourned over four consecutive weeks, and the charge would have been reported at length, read and re-read, until nine-tenth of the readers of the daily papers would have come to the conclusion that there could not be so much smoke without some fire.

In this country, where it is scarcely necessary to say the most perfect justice prevails, we have recently had a charge of libel against a newspaper for asserting that Smith cheated at cards. The unhappy Smith happened to be a foreigner duly impressed with the beauties of our law. He has found out now the advantage of cross-examination, the advantage of adjournments, the beauty of being able to remove the case from one Court to another, the exquisite perfection of our system of pleading, the deference of our suitors to our Courts. He has learnt that by raising a sufficient number of questions, and by choosing a Court where two judges occasionally sit (marvellous ingenuity! two men to do one man's work). The two may differ, and hence an appeal, on a question of pleading, and the point to be tried, is adjourned to the Greek Kalends. If any paper charges a man with cheating at cards it is only necessary for the paper to spend sufficient money to ruin the character attacked, whether the man be a cheat or a gentleman. And is not this a free country, and is not our law perfect, and is not the law the same for

the rich and the poor, or do we all live in a fool's paradise? If any man hereafter does not take the law into his own hands in respect of any libel, in our judgment that man is an ass. If any woman ever appears as a witness in any court of law voluntarily she will never follow advice of ours. She sees A shoot B, B may cross-examine her as to her credibility, and she may be asked if she did not commit adultery with C? and because the question is asked the public believes it. Will juries always stand this foolery? We have no chance of a reform from our magistrates or judges. Will not juries stop such scandals?

To the Editor of "THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS."

THE NEW CLUB, KING'S ROAD, BRIGHTON, 13th January, 1879.

SIR,-In a game of Whist lately played at this Club, A commenced by a lead of the King of Diamonds, to which the fourth player dropped the eight. A continued by playing the Ace of Diamonds, to which the fourth player played the four (a Peter). A then led a small diamond, which the second player trumped with his only trump, and was therefore unable to respond to his partner's call for trumps.

Query: Was the second player justified in trumping?

I do not trouble you with the unfortunate result of this play, but enquire on the probabilities alone whether the play described was sound or not?

In favour of it, it is argued that the fourth player having called for trumps, his partner was bound to make his single little trump, and was not to assume that his partner had the best Diamond from the mere circumstance of his having Petered.

It is argued, per contra, 1st. That as the best Diamond must have been in either the third or fourth hand, there was the great probability that it was in the fourth, because of his having called for trumps. 2nd. That in the face of this probability the second player ought not, by putting in his only trump, prevent a rapid response to his partner's call for trumps, and thereby (as absolutely occurred) enable the adversaries to rough his good cards.

Both sides admit that if the second player had two trumps he would have been right to have trumped the third lead of Diamonds. Yours, &c., LEO.

Your opinion on this point will oblige,

[There are strong arguments in favour of each side. The balance, in our opinion, is in favour of making the single trump. In considering the question we should assume that the last player had not the Queen of the plain suit, otherwise we do not see why he should Peter. We should not do so in that position. If on the other hand the second player passes the trick, the fourth player will certainly think that the second is strong, and hence he may, with great strength, lead a small trump to great weakness to his disadvantage, and if he leads a high one after the first round, he is still in the dark as to his partner's weakness. If, on the contrary, the second player trumps and leads another suit, the fourth player knows perfectly well that the second has no trump, and he can change his tactics. There is no bad play either way. It is simply a balance of probabilities, the disadvantage arising from a bad hand; but by our system we have a trick in hand which, in the long run, should be to the good.-Ed. W. P.]

To the Editor of "THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS."

SIR,-In your December number, I find the following:-" Take out of a Piquet pack twelve cards, and make the best Piquet hand for your purpose.

"Let the second player take any of the remaining twelve cards, seeing yours. No discarding. Can you prevent the first player getting ninety? I beg to reply that the younger hand cannot take any twelve cards that

will prevent the elder getting ninety.

I take for my hand the following:

܀

I have six cards good, and a quint good 21, plus 14 Ace 95, plus 14 tens, 109. No cards can be taken to stop any of this score. The 90 can be obtained by other combinations, the chief thing to guard against being the carte blanche. Twelve plain cards must not be left.

In your January number the following question appears :-" After a hand has been played, can the score be elder hand 20, younger hand 6? Bad play, on either or both sides, allowed." I reply that the score can be arrived at in the following manner :-Let us assume at starting that neither side has anything good, the cards tierce, &c.,

are equal, and no threes. Elder hand leads (1) and loses the trick (1 all). Younger hand leads and loses the trick (2 all). Elder hand leads and wins the next seven tricks, making 8 tricks in all. Score elder 9, younger hand 2. Elder hand now leads again and younger hand wins. Score elder hand 10, younger hand 3. Younger hand now leads out the two last tricks (5) and scores one for the last card, making him 6. Elder hand being 10 and gaining the cards. Total 20 to 6.

Whilst I am on the subject of Cards, might I suggest to Mr. Lewis that his problems are too difficult. Few men would venture on the solution of a DD. problem without putting up the hands. At Chess we can solve problems from the diagram. If he would give us something easier we should have more solvers.

Yours, &c.,

E.

DRAMATIC NOTES.

THE severe cold of the past month may not have been pleasant to managers, but it has afforded many people an excuse for staying away from pantomimes. For this reason we are not able to state which of them in our opinion is the least bad, but, as a matter of speculation, we are inclined to give the palm to that at the Gaiety, which is short, not without humour, and contains a "flying" dance which is remarkable for its marvellous contrivance and for the ease and grace of the dancer Mdlle Ænea. The performances of a company of Italian children in opera and ballet at the Criterion may also be noted as a novelty. These juveniles vary in age from 8 to 15 years, and apparently fall off in acting power as they grow older, the best comedians in the troupe being the smallest boys Natale Vitulli and Vincenzo Ginobbi. The singing of the children is not remarkable for sweetness of voice or correctness of intonation, and although they come from the land of melody they are inferior in this respect to the home-bred choir of any London Ritualistic church. The Christmas entertainments of this season do not appear to be predestined to long life. On the 1st of February the Gaiety pantomime gives place to a new play by Mr. Byron, the little Quiriti" at the Criterion to a new play by the author of Brighton, and the last four weeks of Mr. Chatterton's pantomime at Drury Lane have already been announced. During February also new plays are promised at the Strand, Adelphi, and Royalty, and morning performances of standard plays at the Court and Olympic; so that the month we are now entering upon may be expected to atone for the dulness of January, in which no new play above the rank of farce has been produced. The fact that three new farces have been brought out at Drury Lane, the Olympic, and the Vaudeville, has given rise to an opinion that we are to have a revival of farce. If this is so the way in which it has come about is curious. Burlesque, which contained, when it first became popular, lively music and funny dialogue, temporarily extinguished farce, to be itself eclipsed in turn by opera bouffe, in which dialogue became subordinate to music, and, perhaps in consequence, ceased to be funny. When the wooden indecency (in dress and story) of opera bouffe palled on the public taste, it became transmigrated in its musical sense into opera comique of the Sorcerer type, and in its dramatic sense into three-act and two-act farce, with an occasional song or chorus. And now it appears we have got back to farces in one act, without any music, a fact, however, which is of little significance, so long as they are confined to the beginning or end of the programme, and are represented by no actors of any prominence. Under such conditions farce will remain in a subordinate position, and is not likely to rival its old enemy burlesque, when the latter is well written, well acted, and well sung, as it is at the Gaiety. This theatre alone is able to preserve in part the true spirit of burlesque, which is put to desperate shifts to maintain itself elsewhere. Thus at the Strand The Baby may be said to exist by the aid of a music hall song of great popularity, and at the Folly, where a burlesque on Carmen has lately been produced, the chief applause of the evening is bestowed on a young lady who, without reference to the story, gives a most excellent performance on the zither. An audience assembled to laugh at Mr. Brough, or to admire the Folly supernumeraries hang with breathless interest on the notes of a little trinkling instrument of music. Thus sentiment triumphs over burlesque !

Although we have not yet seen the magazine article in which Mr. Burnand is to prove that there was an abundance of original plays on the English stage last year, there has been some discussion on the subject in the Times, excited by a review in that paper, not remarkable for ability or accuracy, on the stage in 1878. The reviewer stated that with the exception of Olivia at the Court, the most successful plays of last year were borrowed from the French. Upon this appear letters from Messrs. Byron, Gilbert, Burnand, and Bancroft. Mr. Byron demurs to the statement, and points to the success of A Fool and his Money; Mr. Burnand is equally incredulous, having in his mind his pet bantling, Our Club; Mr. Gilbert does not appear to dispute the fact of French success, but ascribes it to the managers, who prefer adaptation to original plays, a statement contradicted by Mr. Bancroft, who recites the list of productions at the Prince of Wales, the Court, and the Vaudeville, showing that a large majority of the plays produced at these theatres under their present managers are by English authors. The original point at issue is thus lost sight of, and is absolutely ignored by the Times in a leading article, which admitting the superiority of the French over the English dramatists, ascribes it to the fact that the best literary talent of France is devoted to writing plays. This is true enough; and on our side we may say that

the English novelist is probably as well known on the Continent as the French dramatist in this country. And, in spite of Mr. Burnand and Mr Byron, we hold that as regards 1878 the majority of the most successful and most meritorious plays were from the French. Amongst the English plays produced were Mr. Marshall's Family Honour, Mr. Gilbert's Vagabond, Mr. Wills' Vanderdecken, Mr. Ross Neil's Elfinella, Messrs. Tom Taylor and Meritt's Such is the Law, none of which were successful; whilst as to Mr. Burnand's Jeames and Our Club, Mr. Byron's Fool and his Money and A Hornet's Nest, and Mr. Williamson's Retiring, all successful, of which of them can it be said that it soared above the rank of farcical comedy? There remains A Republican Marriage, of which the French origin is obvious, and Olivia, which if not adapted from the French is adapted from The Vicar of Wakefield, and though a stage success is a cruel mangling of Goldsmith's work. In the list of adaptations from the French, are The Idol, Grasshopper, and Little Cricket which may be set off against the minor native successes, and over and above there remain Proof, Diplomacy, The Crisis, and Woman of the People, all of which were successful and of a high order of the drama. To these may be added in point of merit Fatherland, though it was a failure in representation. If, however, with Mr. Bancroft, we go further back than 1878, the English drama is able to challenge comparison with the French, both as to the long runs and to the permanent position secured by plays of native origin. The inference to be drawn from the whole matter is that it is always unsafe to generalise from particular circumstances. At the present moment we suppose that Hamlet, Caste, Our Boys, and It is never too late to Mend, enjoy as much favour from all classes of the public as The Crisis, A Scrap of Paper, Proof, The Two Orphans, and that our dramatists will command that favour as often as they write good plays.

To many persons the production of a new play within a week of Christmas would seem a rash proceeding, and the production of a play of Shakspeare utter madness. To contest the field of public favour with pantomime in its first freshness would no doubt have been futile some years ago, but the deed has been successfully done this season at the Lyceum, where Hamlet far exceeds, we imagine, any pantomime now running as a pecuniary success. To the popularity of Mr. Irving, to the curiosity to see the Ophelia of Miss Ellen Terry, and to a love of the play itself, the credit of this success belongs in unequal parts, and it is not necessary to speculate as to the fate of Hamlet were Mr. Irving and Miss Terry out of the cast. As we briefly recorded last month Miss Terry made a strong impression on the first night in a character not admitting of any strong display. Ophelia is not one of Shaksspeare's leading ladies," and gives few opportunities for an actress to show of what stuff she is made. But what little there was to do Miss Terry did with pathos and force combined, and these are the qualities, we believe, necessary for a Shakespearian actress. We look forward with some eagerness to Miss Terry's future impersonations, and we may venture an opinion that she will prove to be the best Beatrice, Imogen, Rosalind, and perhaps even Lady Macbeth, the stage has seen for many years. As to Mr. Irving, he would do well not to over-tax his strength by a nightly performance of Hamlet for a long period. It is true that four years ago, he acted the part for 200 nights, a thing we could not have believed to be possible; but though the strain may not have affected his physical power, it may have weakened him in other ways and perhaps be accountable for the increased mannerisms or Irvingisms which disfigured his Macbeth and Othello. The version of Hamlet, which Mr. Irving has edited for the present revival, is in most respects excellent, and in its scenic arrangements follows, as nearly as can be conveniently done, the original plan. The restoration of Fortinbras and his long speeches is never likely to happen on the stage, and other omissions are necessary to bring the representation within reasonable limits; but certain small omissions in the Lyceum version, which taken altogether would not add ten minutes to the whole time occupied, seem abitrary and unnecessary. For instance, in Act I, Scene I, when Marcellus urges Horatio to speak to the ghost, why should he not give his reason for so urging him, and say, “Thou art a scholar;" and when, further on, he deprecates the show of violence to the ghost, his warning sounds useless by the omission of the previous question, “Shall I strike it with my Partisan?" The large omissions in the fourth and at the end of the third act may be necessary, but they make the fourth act, as now arranged, somewhat obscure, both as to Hamlet's absence in England, and the events which happen in consequence of the death of Polonius. Amongst other omissions may be noticed the popular quotations-" Brevity is the soul of wit," ""Tis true, 'tis pity," &c., and the Queen's remarks as to her son being "fat and scant of breath." The alterations of the text are not numerous, but in certain instances these again appear unnecessary. Mr. Irving was credited on the first night by some critics with having said "the dog will have his 'bay,'" instead of " day," but this alteration does not appear in the Lyceum version. But Mr. Irving does substitute "good-kissing" for God kissing," in the sentence "for if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a God kissing carrion," a proceeding which appears to us to turn sense into nonsense. Nor do we understand why he should tell the player that his face is "valiant" (for " valanced") since he saw him last, the allusion being to the player's beard. Again, certain critics with a facetiousness in doubtful taste, accuse Mr. Irving of pronouncing "Oh, God!" as if it were "Oh, Gut!" In two or three instances where Mr. Irving uses this adjuration, many, if not most, versions of the play have it "Oh Heaven!" and the substitution made is unnecessary, besides savouring of modern drama, where indeed its introduction has been frequently found effective to divert attention from the feeble dialogue of the author.

The revivals of Caste and A Scrap of Paper, at the Prince of Wales and the Court, call for little comment. Caste, the best of Mr. Robertson's many good plays, has outlived a score or more of French successes, and, in

town and country alike, is one of the most popular plays on the English stage. In the present revival Mr. and Mrs. Bancroft and Mr. Honey are again seen to much advantage in their original characters. It is curious to note the excellent effect this play has on Mr. Honey's style. In his recent appearances in London his acting has been very unsatisfactory, but as Eccles in Caste he loses his identity, and no finer character-acting can be seen in London. Mr. Clayton and Miss Roselle are also good as George D'Alroy and Esther, and Miss Le Thière is the best Marquise Caste has ever had; but Mr. Cecil, excellent actor though he is, is not able to obliterate the impression made by Mr. Hare as Sam Gerridge. A Scrap of Paper, at the Court, is also well acted by Mr. and Mrs. Kendal, in their old parts, and by two or three performers new to London, amongst whom Mr. Mackintosh may be mentioned as an actor of great promise. The critics who have recently begun to emancipate themselves from a slavish admiration of all things French now find A Scrap of Paper rather artificial, slightly spun out, and a little unpleasant in its dialogue, a discovery sound but tardy. They may also observe that the famous unities are put to a severe test in this play, in which the hero and heroine are introduced to each other at lunch, and after various phases of feeling, find themselves engaged to be married after dinner on the same day.

D. I. N.-We know nothing about him.

S. C.-Take three tricks from your adversary and add them to your own.

NEW CLUB. We do not know the person referred to, but from the inquiries we have made, we are led to believe that he is a sharper.

THATCHED HOUSE.-We should not think it would be of any use your joining the Junior Portland for the purpose of Whist, unless you were prepared to risk at least £12 on a rubber. That would, we think be the minimum. The rules are 5s. points, and £2 the rubber, but you bet what you like in theory; in practice, you must bet. No small table could ever be kept up.

C. O. R. REVOKE.-A and B are at 3, and X and Z at love, X and Z get 3 by cards and 2 by honours, but revoke. Do A and B get single, double or treble ?-Ans. The revoke penalty counts first. A and B are out and win a treble.

C. W. E., DUBLIN.-Nothing has appeared in these PAPERS

on Rouge et Noir, Trente et Quarente or Roulette.

Your

MARKUS IMRE.-We have written to you by post. letter of 2nd of January did not reach us until the 20th, owing to the fact that it was improperly addressed.

WILLIAMSTOW CHRONICLE-Nos. always sent. The August No. is out of print. Duplicate of others sent by post.

E. G. (Wanderers' Club).-A and B are partners, Y and Z are partners. A leads Queen of Clubs, Y plays a small one. A's partner, B, plays the four of the suit, but in the act of playing he dropped the King, Z did not cover it, as Y and Z claimed to call the King of Clubs, as being an exposed card, thereby giving them the above option.-Ans. Y and Z can call the Club King.

JNO. BULL.-If you can play without sorting your cards, there is no doubt that is the best course, but very few players can do so without an extra strain on their minds, and without causing hesitation and doubt, and sometimes playing a false card. Z.-A, original leader, leads Clubs 3. X, second hand, puts on the 10. Won by B. On the return X plays the 2, and on the Is this a signal for trumps? third round he is void in the suit. -Ans. It is a call for trumps, but you must judge of the idiosyncracies of your players. Some old fashioned people put on the

CORRESPONDENTS.

10 or Knave, second hand, to see where they are, you know; but assuming your partner is not one of the sort, he has played an unnecessarily high card.

FORTY-FIVE.

BELFAST.-A, B, C, and D, were playing the Irish Game, Forty-Five" (which is same in principle and card value as Spoil Five"), score standing, A 40, and B 25. B leading took the first four tricks and then lead again, without claiming the game. A took the last trick, scoring 45, claimed the game, and was allowed to take the pool. Immediately afterwards B remembered that he had scored out before A, and claimed that the pool should be handed back to him. To whom does the pool belong?-Ans. The pool belongs to B. He has scored 45 before A, and we cannot understand on what principle A claims to keep a pool which he acknowledges that B It is true that, in order to prevent arguments about past events when there is no means of proof, it has been decided that after a certain time-usually the turn of the Trump for the first hand in the new game-no question can be raised about alleged mistakes in previous games. But in no case will a gentleman take the stakes on any event which he knows he has not won.

has won.