Black. Mr. PURVES.

I P to K 4 2 Kt to Q B 3 3 B to B 4 4 B takes Kt P 5 B to B 4 6 P to Q3 7 P takes P

8 B to Kt 3

9 Kt to R 4 10 Kt to K 2 II P to KB 3 12 Kt to Kt 3 13 Castles 14 P to QB 4 15 Q to K 2 (b) 16 P to B 5 17 Q to Q sq 18 B to B 2 19 B to Q 2 20 P to Kt 4 (d) 21 K takes Kt 22 K to Kt sq 23 Q to K 2 24 P to B 4 (f) 25 B to K sq 26 B to Q sq 27 Q to Kt 4 28 Q takes Q (g) 29 B to K 2 30 R to B sq (h) 31 R to B 4 32 K to R sq

33 B to B sq

34 B to K 2

A good deal is heard-possibly more than seen-at the Whist table about temper; that so-and-so is good tempered or the reverse; that if we were all better tempered something or other might be different, and similar platitudes, now these mostly start on the false assumption that everybody is equally subject to the same annoyances. That the greatest exponent of bumblepuppy has necessarily the longest temper goes without saying, of course he has; he has nothing to ruffle it, for he has everything his own way; if his partner makes a mistake it is any odds he doesn't see it, de non existentibus et non apparentibus eadem est ratio, one cause of equanimity.

If it is an amusement to him—and I presume it is, otherwise he would not do it-to play a game of which he knows nothing, and if in pursuit of that amusement he thinks fit to take a certain amount of his own and his partner's capital and throw it in the street, why on earth should he lose his temper? Although he has paid his money he has had his choice; another cause of equanimity. Ah Sin played a game he did not understand without losing his temper, and he was a heathen, and an Asiatic, while his antagonist disgraced our common Christianity by letting his angry passions rise because things were going against him. If both partners then are of the same mind and the same calibre-either bad or good-to quote an American author, "all is peas," and like the place

Where brothers dwell and sisters meet
Quarrels should never come.

The difficulty about temper begins to arise when one of the partners fails to see things altogether in the same light as the other; he may be so unfortunately constituted that he is unable to derive any amusement from the game, unless it is played with a modicum of intelligence; it is just possible that instead of considering gold as dross, to be got rid of at the earliest opportunity as an accursed thing, he may actually be influenced by a degrading love of filthy lucre, and a sordid desire for gain-such conditions are to be deplored, but they exist. When then his partner proceeds to run amuck he misses the point of the joke, his perverted moral sense revolts against paying half the money and the other man having all the choice; probably for a time he keeps his mouth tightly shut, but his collaborateur is not to be done in that way, he demands not only silence, but the active assent of his victim, and sooner or later, after the perpetration of some particularly atrocious coup, inquires with the childlike smile of the heathen already referred to, Partner! I think we could not have done better there?" What is to be done now? Silence has failed, are you to agree with him? Are you to dissent and be informed you are always finding fault? to resort to active measures, and throw at him the first thing that

Are you to state what is false? Or is it the best course at once comes to hand? The worm must

turn some time or other; it may turn its other cheek, but that is only temporizing; no worm has more than two cheeks, and when it has had them both slapped, what is it to do then? The copy-books used to tell us-for anything I know they may do so yet-copy-book aphorisms have a marvellous vitality, that " Patience is a virtue." I think virtue ought to have a capital V, and as an abstract proposition, the statement is probably as true and more grammatical than "There's milestones on the Dover Road," but cui bono? The question is, will it wash, Obadiah? Will it wash? The two best known examples of this virtue are the Patriarch Job and the patient ass. Whether the Patriarch was well advised in enduring his friends so long, and whether he endured them on account of his patience, or whether the bodily affliction, from which he was notoriously suffering at the time, incapacitated him from taking active steps to remove them from his bed-room, are questions difficult to decide so long after the event. I express no opinion of my own; vixit, let the dead past bury its dead, de mortuis nil nisi bonum: but the donkey is a different matter, I know him well, and I unhesitatingly say that the only benefit-if benefit is the proper term-he has ever derived from his long suffering has been to be invariably imposed upon in consequence. Casa Bianca on the burning deck did score to a certain extent, for owing to his patience, his widowed mother escaped an undertaker's bill, while he himself is known to this day in the nursery as "the noble boy," yet here, to the more mature observer, the game seems hardly worth the candle.

There is a theory, that abusing your partner is a mistake, not only æsthetically, but (as having a tendency to make him play worse) from a pecuniary point of view; this, it appears to me, may easily be made too much of, for the injury to yourself is remote and doubtful, while the gratification of annoying him is certain and immediate. Some people go so far as to apply language of a condemnatory character to the cards; as it is impossible to arouse any emotion either, of pleasure or anger in their breasts, this seems absurd; it must be bad form to excite yourself without causing annoyance to others, and should certainly be avoided. Believing luck to be strictly personal, it appears to me that calling for new cards is an unnecessary display of temper, and throwing good money after bad.

We may take it, speaking generally, that the worse a man plays the less visible is his bad temper; the converse fortunately does not hold good, for many good players have really wonderful tempers.

One curious circumstance with regard to temper, is that want of perception and thickness of mental cuticle are usually looked upon by the unfortunate possessors as proofs of good temper, and boasted of as such; this is not the case in other afflictions, I once knew a man with a Barbadoes leg, and though its circumference much exceeded mine, he never made offensive comparisons, and we often see people suffering from rheumatic gout, but they don't go hobbling about and bragging that they have not assaulted the police; to sum up the matter, we are all worms, we all turn more or less when trodden upon if we perceive it; the denser the worm, the more slowly he turns; while some ill-conditioned ones turn under all circumstances, some of the most highly organized are scarcely ever known even to wriggle: apparently inoffensive ones sometimes turn most suddenly and ferociously; those most trodden upon -unless quite hors de combat-turn most; finally many congenitally mal-formed worms, and worms suffering from amaurosis, cerebral ramollissement, and other dreadful diseases, are not only unaware of their critical state, but are on the contrary proud of it as a proof of an amiable disposition.

PEMBRIDGE.

DISCARDING.

To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR, Although the question of the discard has been discussed somewhat fully by Cavendish (it is merely alluded to by Clay), I think it is capable of some further treatment, and that a few more considerations may be advanced respecting it, not so much indeed in the way of saying anything new, but rather in the way of suggest- . ing reflections that may be useful in actual play. Clay simply says, "Let the first card you throw away be from your weakest suit," and that thus you tell your partner not to lead that suit. Cavendish, after repeating this, lays down the rule that when your adversaries have led trumps you should discard from your strong suit. I am led to think, however, from the number of games I have played lately, in which the whole question of winning or saving (especially saving) depended on a discard, quite irrespective of whether the adversaries had led trumps or not, that it would be better to deal with the whole matter in a more general style. I do not deny, but highly appreciate the importance of Cavendish's rule, but would rather say, When you have to make a discard, consider carefully the whole scheme and position of the game.' If at an early period of the hand, with nothing to guide you as to strength in trumps, as to what you may ultimately attempt to do, as to any special turn of play that may possibly be required in consequence of the score, you have to discard, let the discard be from your weakest suit, but the instant it becomes obvious that protection is needed, or that there is danger a-head, whether from the adversaries having led or signalled for trumps, or having declared strength in any particular suit or suits, then I say be very careful how you unguard such a suit. In many cases of this sort it is fatal to discard from a four suit with a ten or even a nine. As an instance, I was playing recently and the adversaries declared Hearts to be their suit; I had four with the 10. In Diamonds I had the Ace,

King, and another. After discarding the small Diamond, and in this case my partner and not the adversary had led trumps, I did not like to discard the Ace and King of Diamonds, thinking I must make one trick by means of them, which would have saved the game, although the fall of the cards impressed me with the idea that I had better discard both and protect the Hearts; but no, I discarded Hearts and lost the game, which would have been saved had I only kept my four Hearts until that suit was led. Again, my partner lately led the suit I discarded, simply because the adversaries had led trumps, and according to the limited rule laid down by Cavendish he was justified, although in this particular case there were many reasons why I should still discard my weak suit, notwithstanding the trump lead by the adversaries. I take it that in nearly every case in which you have only three small cards of a suit that has not been led] you should discard one of those small cards instead of throwing away from your strong suit, although the adversaries have led trumps; and if your partner, assuming you are following Cavendish's rule, leads that suit it is very disadvantageous. I take it, therefore, that Cavendish's rule is too narrow in its terms, and that it should be enlarged by stating that the strong suit should be discarded from, not only always when the adversaries have led trumps, but whenever it is necessary to protect a suit in which your adversaries are strong, or rather perhaps it ought to be said, always as far as possible when a case of having to discard arises, protect a weak suit in your own hand whenever you see a chance of that suit being brought in by the adversary. The discard therefore ceases to be a simple indication to your partner, but must be considered by him in the light of the play of the whole hand. It will be said probably that this view of the matter throws great difficulties on your partner. No doubt it does add to the necessity for careful play on his part, but in this case, as in all others, you must consider the calibre of the partner you are playing with, and play accordingly.

I do not touch on any question as to discarding one of the last two or three cards in the hand, as this is a matter almost universally depending on memory and observation, but the importance of the whole question of discarding may, I think, be more vividly realized when it is remembered that one of the most brilliant coups at Whist the grand coup is entirely a question of discarding. Yours, &c., H. M. P.

To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS.

SIR,-The following case recently occurred. A led out of turn, B followed, and when C was about to play, D, the 4th player, called upon him to pass the trick. This call was, of course, an irregular way of calling upon him not to win the trick. The question arose whether, one adversary having endeavoured to exact a penalty to which he was not entitled, the offender was free from the effects of his irregularity. Law 63 is very precise"If any player lead out of turn, and the other three have followed him, the trick is complete, and the error cannot be rectified; but if only the second (the case in question), or the second and third have played to the false lead, their cards, on discovery of the mistake, are taken back: there is no penalty against any one, excepting the original offender, whose card may be called, or he or his partner, when either of them has next the lead, may be compelled to play any suit demanded by the adversaries. The offence, having been committed, this Law distinctly provides the punishment which must be inflicted, if at all, in one of two ways. If a suit is not called from the right leader when it is his turn to play, the only penalty remaining is to call the card erroneously led. If a suit is not called, &c., and the card erroneously led is not called before the offender can get rid of it in the legitimate course of play, all penalty is gone. The question now is, can the right to exact one of these two penalties survive to one or both partners, when one partner has, ignorantly, called for a penalty, he has no power to exact. Penal laws must be construed strictly, and to hold that the right penalty survives where the wrong one is exacted, is to incorporate the whole body of Whist offences into every law, inflicting a precise penalty, so that for the offence of leading out of turn, an adversary might call for a new deal, and the lead of the highest or lowest, and that his partner should win or not win the trick, all penalties exactable under the laws of Whist, without forfeiting his right to exact the penalty provided for the offence, when the adversaries refuse to acknowledge any of such irregular claims.

All players must be presumed to know the laws of Whist; it is no answer for a player to say that he thought he had a right to exact such and such a penalty. Suppose, taking again, the case of leading out of turn, an adversary, ignorant of the penalty he had the right to exact, called upon the offender, who had been the dealer, to play the King of Trumps, the turn up card, could he claim to be himself exempt from the penalty of having named the turn up Trump, because he had claimed an irregular penalty?

In my opinion, the claim of an irregular penalty, although, as in the case just put, it may give the original offender, or his partner, the right to exact a penalty in return, stops the adversaries from exacting the true penalty,

and releases the offence.

But, on the other side, it is contended, under the last words of Law 84, that a claim of a penalty to which the claimant is not entitled, is no bar to the claim of the right penalty.

Law 84 says,

"When a player and his partner have an option of exacting from their adversaries one of two penalties, they should agree who is to make the election, but must not consult with one another which of the two