The Laws and Principles of Whist

---

TO

JAMES CLAY, Esq., M.P.

(Chairman of the Whist Laws Committee of the Arlington Club, 1864,)

This Book

IS

CORDIALLY DEDICATED

BY

HIS SINCERE FRIEND,

THE AUTHOR.

---

---

It has often occurred to the Author that there are two principal defects in the existing treatises on the game of Whist—the one that the principles of play are, in general, laid down as so many isolated and arbitrary conventions, the reasons upon which such principles are based being seldom, if at all, and scarcely ever fully, stated; the other, that suitable illustrations, by which alone the principles can be brought forcibly home and fixed in the memory, are almost entirely wanting. The present work is an attempt to supply these deficiencies. With regard to the latter, the Author feels that nothing, in point of illustration of principles, can be so instructive as a selection of hands played completely through, and accompanied by copious explanations. The idea, it is believed, as applied to Whist, is a new one, though a similar plan has long been in use in treatises on Chess.

It has not been deemed necessary to occupy space by detailing the mode of playing and of scoring, as this information can be readily acquired at the table. The reader is, therefore, credited with this elementary knowledge, and is conducted at once to the General Principles, which he is advised to consider carefully before proceeding to the Hands.

---

The attention of the Reader is particularly directed to Appendix A, explanatory of American Leads. The Author is firmly convinced that American Leads are founded on true principles of whist play, and they therefore have his hearty approval. But, he hesitates to insist upon these leads in the body of the "Principles," as they have not yet met with universal,—and, perhaps, hardly with general,—acceptance.

The advanced player is also invited to consider, with care, Appendix B, which treats briefly of The Plain-Suit Echo.

---

The advanced player is invited to consider, with care, Appendix C, which treats of the leads from ace, king, and from king, queen suits.

---

---

1. The rubber is the best of three games. If the first two games be won by the same players, the third game is not played.

2. A game consists of five points. Each trick, above six, counts one point.

3. Honours, i.e., Ace, King, Queen, and Knave of trumps, are thus reckoned:

If a player and his partner, either separately or conjointly, hold—

4. Those players, who, at the commencement of a deal, are at the score of four, cannot score honours.

5. The penalty for a revoke[1] takes precedence of all other scores. Tricks score next. Honours last.

6. Honours, unless claimed before the trump card of the following deal is turned up, cannot be scored.

7. To score honours is not sufficient; they must be called at the end of the hand; if so called, they may be scored at any time during the game.

8. The winners gain—

9. The winners of the rubber gain two points (commonly called the rubber points), in addition to the value of their games.

10. Should the rubber have consisted of three games, the value of the losers' game is deducted from the gross number of points gained by their opponents.

11. If an erroneous score be proved, such mistake can be corrected prior to the conclusion of the game in which it occurred, and such game is not concluded until the trump card of the following deal has been turned up.

12. If an erroneous score, affecting the amount of the rubber,[2] be proved, such mistake can be rectified at any time during the rubber.

13. The ace is the lowest card.

14. In all cases, every one must cut from the same pack.

15. Should a player expose more than one card, he must cut again.

16. If there are more than four candidates, the players are selected by cutting: those first in the room having the preference. The four who cut the lowest cards play first, and again cut to decide on partners; the two lowest play against the two highest; the lowest is the dealer, who has choice of cards and seats, and, having once made his selection, must abide by it.

17. When there are more than six candidates, those who cut the two next lowest cards belong to the table, which is complete with six players; on the retirement of one of those six players, the candidate who cut the next lowest card has a prior right to any after-comer to enter the table.

18. Two players cutting cards of equal value,[3] unless such cards are the two highest, cut again; should they be the two lowest, a fresh cut is necessary to decide which of those two deals.[4]

19. Three players cutting cards of equal value cut again; should the fourth (or remaining) card be the highest, the two lowest of the new cut are partners, the lower of those two the dealer; should the fourth card be the lowest, the two highest are partners, the original lowest the dealer.[5]

20. At the end of a rubber, should admission be claimed by any one, or by two candidates, he who has, or they who have, played a greater number of consecutive rubbers than the others is, or are, out; but when all have played the same number, they must cut to decide upon the out-goers; the highest are out.

21. A candidate wishing to enter a table must declare such intention prior to any of the players having cut a card, either for the purpose of commencing a fresh rubber, or of cutting out.

22. In the formation of fresh tables, those candidates who have neither belonged to nor played at any other table have the prior right of entry; the others decide their right of admission by cutting.

23. Any one quitting a table prior to the conclusion of a rubber, may, with consent of the other three players, appoint a substitute in his absence during that rubber.

24. A player cutting into one table, whilst belonging to another, loses his right[6] of re-entry into that latter, and takes his chance of cutting in, as if he were a fresh candidate.[7]

25. If any one break up a table, the remaining players have the prior right to him of entry into any other, and should there not be sufficient vacancies at such other table to admit all those candidates, they settle their precedence by cutting.

26. The pack must neither be shuffled below the table nor so that the face of any card be seen.

27. The pack must not be shuffled during the play of the hand.

28. A pack, having been played with, must neither be shuffled, by dealing it into packets, nor across the table.

29. Each player has a right to shuffle, once only, except as provided by Rule 32, prior to a deal, after a false cut,[8] or when a new deal[9] has occurred.

30. The dealer's partner must collect the cards for the ensuing deal, and has the first right to shuffle that pack.

31. Each player, after shuffling, must place the cards, properly collected and face downwards, to the left of the player about to deal.

32. The dealer has always the right to shuffle last; but should a card or cards be seen during his shuffling or whilst giving the pack to be cut, he may be compelled to re-shuffle.

33. Each player deals in his turn; the right of dealing goes to the left.

34. The player on the dealer's right cuts the pack, and in dividing it, must not leave fewer than four cards in either packet; if in cutting, or in replacing one of the two packets on the other, a card be exposed,[10] or if there be any confusion of the cards, or a doubt as to the exact place in which the pack was divided, there must be a fresh cut.

35. When a player, whose duty it is to cut, has once separated the pack, he cannot alter his intention; he can neither re-shuffle nor re-cut the cards.

36. When the pack is cut, should the dealer shuffle the cards, he loses his deal.

37. There must be a new deal[11]—

38. If, whilst dealing, a card be exposed by the dealer or his partner, should neither of the adversaries have touched the cards, the latter can claim a new deal; a card exposed by either adversary gives that claim to the dealer, provided that his partner has not touched a card; if a new deal does not take place, the exposed card cannot be called.

39. If, during dealing, a player touch any of his cards, the adversaries may do the same, without losing their privilege of claiming a new deal, should chance give them such option.

40. If, in dealing, one of the last cards be exposed, and the dealer turn up the trump before there is reasonable time for his adversaries to decide as to a fresh deal, they do not thereby lose their privilege.

41. If a player, whilst dealing, look at the trump card, his adversaries have a right to see it, and may exact a new deal.

42. If a player take into the hand dealt to him a card belonging to the other pack, the adversaries, on discovery of the error, may decide whether they will have a fresh deal or not.

43. A misdeal loses the deal.[12]

44. It is a misdeal[13]—

45. A misdeal does not lose the deal if, during the dealing, either of the adversaries touch the cards prior to the dealer's partner having done so, but should the latter have first interfered with the cards, notwithstanding either or both of the adversaries have subsequently done the same, the deal is lost.

46. Should three players have their right number of cards—the fourth have less than thirteen, and not discover such deficiency until he has played any of his cards,[16] the deal stands good; should he have played, he is as answerable for any revoke he may have made as if the missing card, or cards, had been in his hand;[17] he may search the other pack for it, or them.

47. If a pack, during or after a rubber, be proved incorrect or imperfect, such proof does not alter any past score, game, or rubber; that hand in which the imperfection was detected is null and void; the dealer deals again.

48. Any one dealing out of turn, or with the adversary's cards, may be stopped before the trump card is turned up, after which the game must proceed as if no mistake had been made.

49. A player can neither shuffle, cut, nor deal for his partner, without the permission of his opponents.

50. If the adversaries interrupt a dealer whilst dealing, either by questioning the score or asserting that it is not his deal, and fail to establish such claim, should a misdeal occur, he may deal again.

51. Should a player take his partner's deal, and misdeal, the latter is liable to the usual penalty, and the adversary next in rotation to the player who ought to have dealt then deals.

52. The dealer, when it is his turn to play to the first trick, should take the trump card into his hand; if left on the table after the first trick be turned and quitted, it is liable to be called;[18] his partner may at any time remind him of the liability.

53. After the dealer has taken the trump card into his hand, it cannot be asked for;[19] a player naming it at any time during the play of that hand is liable to have his highest or lowest trump called.[20]

54. If the dealer take the trump card into his hand before it is his turn to play, he may be desired to lay it on the table; should he show a wrong card, this card may be called, as also a second, a third, &c., until the trump card be produced.

55. If the dealer declare himself unable to recollect the trump card, his highest or lowest trump may be called at any time during that hand, and, unless it cause him to revoke, must be played; the call may be repeated, but not changed, i.e., from highest to lowest, or vice versâ, until such card is played.

56. All exposed cards are liable to be called, and must be left[21] on the table; but a card is not an exposed card when dropped on the floor, or elsewhere below the table.

The following are exposed[22] cards:—

57. If any one play to an imperfect trick the best card on the table,[24] or lead one which is a winning card as against his adversaries, and then lead again,[25] or play several such winning cards, one after the other, without waiting for his partner to play, the latter may be called on to win, if he can, the first or any other of those tricks, and the other cards thus improperly played are exposed cards.

58. If a player, or players, under the impression that the game is lost—or won—or for other reasons—throw his or their cards on the table face upwards, such cards are exposed, and liable to be called, each player's by the adversary; but should one player alone retain his hand, he cannot be forced to abandon it.

59. If all four players throw their cards on the table face upwards, the hands are abandoned; and no one can again take up his cards. Should this general exhibition show that the game might have been saved, or won, neither claim can be entertained, unless a revoke be established. The revoking players are then liable to the following penalties: they cannot under any circumstances win the game by the result of that hand, and the adversaries may add three to their score, or deduct three from that of the revoking players.

60. A card detached from the rest of the hand so as to be named is liable to be called; but should the adversary name a wrong card, he is liable to have a suit called when he or his partner have the lead.[26]

61. If a player, who has rendered himself liable to have the highest or lowest of a suit called, fail to play as desired, or if when called on to lead one suit, lead another, having in his hand one or more cards of that suit demanded, he incurs the penalty of a revoke.

62. If any player lead out of turn, his adversaries may either call the card erroneously led—or may call a suit from him or his partner when it is next the turn of either of them[27] to lead.

63. 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, 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[28] has next the lead, may be compelled to play any suit demanded by the adversaries.

64. In no case can a player be compelled to play a card which would oblige him to revoke.

65. The call of a card may be repeated[29] until such card has been played.

66. If a player called on to lead a suit have none of it, the penalty is paid.

67. If the third hand play before the second, the fourth hand may play before his partner.

68. Should the third hand not have played, and the fourth play before his partner, the latter may be called on to win, or not to win the trick.

69. If any one omit playing to a former trick, and such error be not discovered until he has played to the next, the adversaries may claim a new deal; should they decide that the deal stand good, the surplus card at the end of the hand is considered to have been played to the imperfect trick, but does not constitute a revoke therein.

70. If any one play two cards to the same trick, or mix his trump, or other card, with a trick to which it does not properly belong, and the mistake be not discovered until the hand is played out, he is answerable for all consequent revokes he may have made.[30] If, during the play of the hand, the error be detected, the tricks may be counted face downwards, in order to ascertain whether there be among them a card too many: should this be the case they may be searched, and the card restored; the player is, however, liable for all revokes which he may have meanwhile made.

71. Is when a player, holding one or more cards of the suit led, plays a card of a different suit.[31]

72. The penalty for a revoke:—

73. A revoke is established, if the trick in which it occur be turned and quitted, i.e., the hand removed from that trick after it has been turned face downwards on the table—or if either the revoking player or his partner, whether in his right turn or otherwise, lead or play to the following trick.

74. A player may ask his partner whether he has not a card of the suit which he has renounced; should the question be asked before the trick is turned and quitted, subsequent turning and quitting does not establish the revoke, and the error may be corrected, unless the question be answered in the negative, or unless the revoking player or his partner have led or played to the following trick.

75. At the end of the hand, the claimants of a revoke may search all the tricks.[33]

76. If a player discover his mistake in time to save a revoke, the adversaries, whenever they think fit, may call the card thus played in error, or may require him to play his highest or lowest card to that trick in which he has renounced;—any player or players who have played after him may withdraw their cards and substitute others: the cards withdrawn are not liable to be called.

77. If a revoke be claimed, and the accused player or his partner mix the cards before they have been sufficiently examined by the adversaries, the revoke is established. The mixing of the cards only renders the proof of a revoke difficult, but does not prevent the claim, and possible establishment, of the penalty.

78. A revoke cannot be claimed after the cards have been cut for the following deal.

79. The revoking player and his partner may, under all circumstances, require the hand in which the revoke has been detected to be played out.

80. If a revoke occur, be claimed and proved, bets on the odd trick, or on amount of score, must be decided by the actual state of the latter, after the penalty is paid.

81. Should the players on both sides subject themselves to the penalty of one or more revokes, neither can win the game; each is punished at the discretion of his adversary.[34]

82. In whatever way the penalty be enforced, under no circumstances can a player win the game by the result of the hand during which he has revoked; he cannot score more than four. (Vide Rule 61.)

83. Any player (on paying for them) before, but not after, the pack be cut for the deal, may call for fresh cards. He must call for two new packs, of which the dealer takes his choice.

84. Where 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 penalties it is advisable to exact; if they do so consult they lose their right;[35] and if either of them, with or without consent of his partner, demand a penalty to which he is entitled, such decision is final.

85. Any one during the play of a trick, or after the four cards are played, and before, but not after, they are touched for the purpose of gathering them together, may demand that the cards be placed before their respective players.

86. If any one, prior to his partner playing, should call attention to the trick—either by saying that it is his, or by naming his card, or, without being required so to do, by drawing it towards him—the adversaries may require that opponent's partner to play the highest or lowest of the suit then led, or to win or lose[36] the trick.

87. In all cases where a penalty has been incurred, the offender is bound to give reasonable time for the decision of his adversaries.

88. If a bystander make any remark which calls the attention of a player or players to an oversight affecting the score, he is liable to be called on, by the players only, to pay the stakes and all bets on that game or rubber.

89. A bystander, by agreement among the players, may decide any question.

90. A card or cards torn or marked must be either replaced by agreement, or new cards called at the expense of the table.

91. Any player may demand to see the last trick turned, and no more. Under no circumstances can more than eight cards be seen during the play of the hand, viz.: the four cards on the table which have not been turned and quitted, and the last trick turned.

---

The following rules belong to the established Etiquette of Whist. They are not called laws, as it is difficult—in some cases impossible—to apply any penalty to their infraction, and the only remedy is to cease to play with players who habitually disregard them.

Two packs of cards are invariably used at Clubs: if possible this should be adhered to.

Any one, having the lead and several winning cards to play, should not draw a second card out of his hand until his partner has played to the first trick, such act being a distinct intimation that the former has played a winning card.

No intimation whatever, by word or gesture, should be given by a player as to the state of his hand, or of the game.[37]

A player who desires the cards to be placed, or who demands to see the last trick,[38] should do it for his own information only, and not in order to invite the attention of his partner.

No player should object to refer to a bystander who professes himself uninterested in the game, and able to decide any disputed question of facts; as to who played any particular card—whether honours were claimed though not scored, or vice versâ—etc., etc.

It is unfair to revoke purposely; having made a revoke, a player is not justified in making a second in order to conceal the first.

Until the players have made such bets as they wish, bets should not be made with bystanders.

Bystanders should make no remark, neither should they by word or gesture give any intimation of the state of the game until concluded and scored, nor should they walk round the table to look at the different hands.

No one should look over the hand of a player against whom he is betting.

Is played by three players.

One hand, called Dummy's, lies exposed on the table.

The laws are the same as those of Whist, with the following exceptions:—

Is played by two players, each having a Dummy or exposed hand for his partner. The laws of the game do not differ from Dummy Whist, except in the following special law: There is no misdeal, as the deal is a disadvantage.

---

Card laws are intended to effect two objects: 1. To preserve the harmony and determine the ordering of the table. Such, for example, are the laws in the previous code, which regulate scoring, cutting, shuffling, &c. and the miscellaneous rules included under the head of Etiquette. 2. To prevent any player from obtaining an unfair advantage.

The word "unfair" must be taken in a restricted sense. It does not mean intentional unfairness. This is not to be dealt with by laws, but by exclusion from the card table. In deciding cases of card law, the offender should be credited with bonâ fides. It follows from this, that offences should not be judged by the intention of the player, but by the amount of injury which his irregularity may inflict on the opponents.

In a perfect code, there should be a penalty for all errors or irregularities, by which the player committing them, or his side, might profit; and on the other hand there should be no penalty for errors by which he who commits them, cannot possibly gain an advantage.

Penalties should be proportioned as closely as possible to the gain which might ensue to the offender. For instance: if the third hand has not played and the fourth plays before his partner, the second hand is informed whether or not his partner is likely to win the trick. The law, therefore, provides that the adversaries shall be entitled to call on the second player either to win the trick, or not to win it, whichever they please. Say, the fourth hand plays an ace out of turn. The second hand may be required to win the trick. If he has none of the suit he must trump it. In the opposite case, if the fourth hand plays a small card, and the second is called on not to win the trick, he must play a small card also. In this manner, the second player is prevented from benefiting by the irregular information afforded him. Other offences are legislated against in a similar way, the point kept in view throughout being, that no player shall be allowed to profit by his own wrong doing.

However carefully a code is drawn up, it will not unfrequently happen in practice, that cases occur which are but imperfectly provided for. Such cases should be referred for decision to some arbitrator. The arbitrator will find himself materially assisted by keeping well before him the two great objects with which the laws have been framed.

The following general rules will also be found useful in guiding him to just decisions:

Where two or more players are in fault, it should be considered with whom the first fault lies, and how far it induced or invited the subsequent error of the adversary.

Questions of fact should be settled before the case is referred, either by a majority of the players, or, if they are divided in opinion, by an onlooker agreed to by both parties, the decision of this referee being final.

When the facts are agreed to they should be written down, and the written statement submitted to the judge, who should return a written answer.

Should it so happen that a case is referred, wherein the players are divided in opinion as to the facts, the arbitrator will do well to decline to give a decision. The disputants, however, may be reminded that the player whom it is proposed to punish is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Questions of interpretation of law should be decided liberally, in accordance with the spirit rather than the letter of the law. On the other hand, the arbitrator should bear in mind the great inconvenience of a lax interpretation of card laws, and, having made up his mind as to the intention of the law, should decide all cases with the utmost strictness.

The following cases, with decisions, selected from a large number which have been brought under the author's notice as having occurred in actual play, are given in exemplification of the foregoing remarks.

The play of the hand shows that AB (partners) hold no honour. The hand is therefore abandoned and the adversaries (YZ) score the game. It is then discovered that Y has only twelve cards, and one of the honours is found on the floor. AB then object to the score on the ground that YZ only "held" three honours (vide Law 3).

Decision—YZ are entitled to score four by honours. Y is not obliged to play with his cards in his hand. Besides, the game having been abandoned, Law 59 comes into operation. The penalty for playing with twelve cards is laid down in Law 46. Y is liable for any revoke he may have made.

AB claim "the game" and score it. After the trump card of the following deal is turned up, YZ object that AB have not claimed honours (vide Laws 6 and 7).

Decision—The honours were claimed within the meaning of the law. The objection to the score, if made really in ignorance of how it accrued, should have been taken at once. YZ should not wait the completion of the deal, so as to entrap AB on a mere technicality.

Note. This is a good instance of interpretation in accordance with the spirit of the law. Laws should never be so construed as to inflict a wholly unnecessary wrong, as would happen in this case were the law insisted on literally. The intention of Law 7 is to require AB to draw attention to the claim; and this is sufficiently done by the claim of "the game."

Y throws down his hand and claims "the game." B (Y's adversary) thinking that Y is referring only to the tricks, says, "You are not game." Y then marks four. After the trump card of the following deal is turned up, A remarks, "if Y had scored his honours, he would have been game." Y then claims the game, on the ground that he made the claim in time, and only withdrew it in consequence of B's contradiction. Is Y entitled to score the game?

Decision—No. Y's claim of "the game" is irregular. He is bound to state in what way he wins it (vide Law 6). There is no evidence that Y was referring to his honours when he claimed the game, but rather the contrary, as he afterwards withdrew his claim and said nothing about honours.

Note. This is an example of two players being in fault. It seems hard on Y that he should suffer through B's mistake; but it must be borne in mind that the confusion was introduced by Y's own irregularity, and that the omission to score honours was due to his subsequent forgetfulness.

Compare with Case II.

At the conclusion of the deal the trump card comes to the hand on the dealer's left. The dealer requests the players to count their cards. The player to the dealer's left appropriates a packet of cards lying a little to his own right hand, between himself and the dealer, and finds twelve cards in it. The other hands each contain thirteen. The dealer now claims the hand with twelve cards in it as his hand. Must the players accept the hands thus given to them, or is it a misdeal?

Decision—It is a misdeal. The fault is entirely with the dealer. If he deals so carelessly that there is any doubt as to the ownership of the hands, he must apportion them, and having once done so, he must not shift the hands about, so as to make a hand with twelve cards in it fall to himself.

Y throws down his cards, remarking, "We have lost the game." On this, A and B (Y's adversaries) throw down their cards. Z retains his hand. AB plead that they were misled by Y and that therefore they are not liable to Law 58.

Decision—A's, Y's, and B's hands are exposed, and must be left on the table to be called, each player's by the adversary. Z is not bound to abandon the game because his partner chooses to do so. Consequently, Y's remark does not bind Z. A and B ought to keep up their cards, until they have ascertained that both adversaries have abandoned the game.

Note. The written law is sufficient to decide this case (vide Law 58); but inasmuch as the irregularity in question is a fertile source of disputes, the case has been deemed worthy of insertion.

When it comes to the last trick of a hand, it appears that the player who has to lead has no card. What is to be done?

Decision—(a) If either of the other players remains with two cards, it is a misdeal (vide Law 44, paragraph iv). (b) If the other players have their right number of cards, the missing card should be searched for (vide Law 70) and when found assigned to the leader, who is liable to Law 46. (c) If the missing card cannot be found, the tricks may be searched to find what card is wanting, and the absent card assumed to have belonged to the player who had but twelve cards.

Note. It may seem that decision c is severe on a player playing bonâ fide with an imperfect pack. But each player should protect himself, by counting his hand before he plays. His playing to the first trick signifies his acceptance of the hand. If he accepts an imperfect one he must take the consequences.

Towards the end of a hand a spade is led. The third hand, when it comes to his turn to play, lays down the ace of trumps (hearts) and says "There's the game." He then throws his hand on the table. The hand contains several spades. Is it a revoke?

Decision—It is a question of fact. If the card was exposed in order to save time, it is not a revoke. But if the ace of trumps was played to the trick it is a revoke, the subsequent throwing down of the cards being an act of play, equivalent to playing to the following trick (vide Law 73).

The adversary cuts the pack to the dealer, but without his consent, i.e., without the dealer's presenting it to be cut. Is it too late to claim a revoke in the previous hand? (vide Law 78).

Decision—It is too late for the player who cut or for his partner to claim a revoke, but not too late for the adversaries.

A player revokes, and on discovering the revoke before the hand is played out, says in explanation, "I never saw the card; it was hidden behind my king of diamonds"—the king of diamonds being still in his hand.

Decision—The king of diamonds is constructively an exposed card, and the adversaries may require that it be laid on the table to be called.

Y leads out of turn. B (Y's adversary) says to his partner, "Shall we call a suit or not?" B's partner gives no answer. Is the asking the question a consultation within the meaning of Law 84, although no answer is made to it?

Decision—Yes. It is the very question Law 84 is framed to prevent. B by the question shows that he is in doubt as to the policy of calling a suit, and thus affords information he has no right to give. Further than this, a reply by word of mouth is not necessary to constitute a consultation. Silence is an answer. The knowledge that a partner is indifferent may convey information that B has no right to extract.

Note. The usual formula is "Will you exact the penalty, or shall I?" This question does not bring the player under the operation of Law 84.

A leads and the other three players follow suit. A plays another card (it not being his lead) and proceeds to gather the five cards into one trick. On being told of it, A explains that his attention has been diverted, and that he thought he had not played to the trick. The adversaries claim to be entitled to the penalties for leading out of turn, on the ground that the penalty should depend, not on the actual intention of the player, but on his possible intention.

Decision—A has not led out of turn; he has merely exposed a card. The abstract principle pleaded by the adversaries is quite sound, but it does not apply to this case. A's word must be taken as correctly representing the fact that he played a second time to one trick.

---

The early history of Whist is involved in obscurity. All games of high character become perfected by degrees; and Whist, following this rule, has been formed by gradual development. As early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, a card game called triumph or trump was commonly played in England. This game in its chief feature, viz., the predominance of one particular suit, and in its general construction, was so similar to Whist, that no one can doubt it to have been the game from which Whist grew.

There were two distinct games called trump. Triomphe or French ruff was very like écarté, only there was no score for the king; Trump or English ruff-and-honours closely resembled Whist.

Berni ("Capitolo del Gioco della Primera," Rome, 1526), enumerates several games at cards; among them are trionfi, played by the peasants; and ronfa, the invention of which is attributed to King Ferdinand.

Triumphus Hispanicus is the subject of a "Dialogue" written in Latin and French by Vives, a Spaniard (d. 1541).

La triomphe and la ronfle are included by Rabelais (first half of sixteenth century) in the long list of some two hundred and thirty games played by Gargantua.

In "A Worlde of Wordes or Most copious and exact Dictionarie in Italian and English collected by John Florio, 1598," ronfa is defined as "a game at cardes called ruffe or trumpe;" and under trionfo we find "triumph. * * * Also a trump at cards, or the play called trump or ruff."

There is no evidence to show whether the above were the foreign or native form of trump. Douce, in his "Illustrations of Shakespeare," concludes, from finding la triomphe in Rabelais' list, that we derived the game of trump from a French source. But it seems more probable, from the non-appearance of English ruff-and-honours in the Académie des Jeux, and from the distinction drawn in Cotton's "Compleat Gamester" between "English ruff-and-honours" and "French ruff" (la triomphe of the Académie), that the game referred to by Berni, Vives, Rabelais, and Florio, was not the same game as English ruff-and-honours, for which a purely English origin (as the name implies) may be claimed.

How and when trump or English ruff-and-honours originated cannot now be ascertained. It was played at least as early as the time of Henry VIII., for it was taken by Latimer to illustrate his text, in the first of two sermons "Of the Card," preached by him at Cambridge, in Advent, about the year 1529. He mentions the game under its original and corrupted appellations, and clearly alludes to its characteristic feature, as the following extract will show.

Later in the century trump is often referred to. In "Gammer Gurton's Nedle, made by Mr. S., Mr of Art [Bishop Still] 1575," the second piece performed in England under the name of a comedy (performed at Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1566), Old Dame Chat thus invites some friends to a game:—

In Eliot's "Fruits for the French" (1593), trump is called "a verie common alehouse game;" and Rice, in his "Invective against Vices" (printed before 1600), observes that "renouncing the trompe and comming in againe" (i.e., revoking intentionally), is a common sharper's trick. Decker, in "The Belman of London" (1608), speaks of "the deceites practised (euen in the fairest and most ciuill companies) at Primero, Saint, Maw, Tromp, and such like games."

The game of trump is also mentioned by Shakespeare in "Antony and Cleopatra," Act iv., scene 12 (first published 1623).

The repeated punning allusions to card-playing in this passage leave no doubt as to the reference in the last word. Douce ("Illustrations") points out its real meaning, and ridicules Ben Jonson's derivation of the word trump from tromper.

There is abundant evidence to show that trump is a corruption of the word triumph. In addition to the instances already given, the following may be quoted: In Cotgrave's "Dictionarie of the French and English Tongve" (1611), Triomphe is explained as "the Card-game called Ruffe or Trump; also the Ruffe or Trump at it." Minsheu, in "The Guide unto Tongues" (1617), gives, "The Trumpe in cardes. Triumfo, ita dict: quod de cæteris chartis triumphare videatur, quod illis sit præstantior." Seymour, in his "Court Gamester" (1719), says—"The Term Trump comes from a Corruption of the Word Triumph; for wherever they are, they are attended with Conquest." Ash ("Dictionary, 1775") has "Triumph (s. from the Lat. triumphus). * * * A conquering card, a trump; but this sense is now become obsolete. Trump (s. from triumph)."

The derivation of the word ruff or ruffe has caused much speculation. The previous quotations show that it is the same word as ronfa (Ital.) and ronfle (Fr.), and that it is synonymous with the English triumph or trump. Even at the present day many Whist players speak of ruffing, i.e., trumping; and, in the expression a cross-ruff, the word ruff is preserved to the exclusion of the word trump.

The game of ruff-and-honours, if not the same as trump or ruff, was probably the same game, with the addition of certain advantages to the four highest cards of the trump suit. Rabelais includes in his list a game called "les Honneurs," but whether it had any affinity to ruff-and-honours is doubtful. In "Shufling, Cutting, and Dealing, in a Game at Pickquet: being Acted from the Year, 1653. to 1658. By O.P. [Oliver Protector] and others; With great Applause." (1659), the "Old Foolish Christmas Game with Honours" is mentioned. Some writers are of opinion that trump was originally played without honours; but as no description of trump without honours is known to exist, their view must be taken as conjectural. In 1674, Charles Cotton, the poet, published a description of ruff-and-honours in "The Compleat Gamester: or Instructions How to play at Billiards, Trucks, Bowls, and Chess. Together with all manner of usual and most Gentile Games, either on Cards or Dice." Cotton gives a drawing of the game of "English Ruff and Honours," (see frontispiece) and thus describes it:—

This game was clearly Whist in an imperfect form. Whist is not mentioned by Shakespeare, nor by any writer (it is believed) of the Elizabethan era. It is probable that the introduction of the name whist or whisk took place early in the seventeenth century.

The first known appearance of the word in print is in the "Motto" of Taylor, the Water Poet (1621). Taylor spells the word whisk. Speaking of the prodigal, he says:—

The word continued to be spelt whisk for about forty years. The earliest known use of the present spelling is in "Hudibras the Second Part" (spurious) published in 1663:—

After this, the word is spelt indifferently, whisk or whist. In "The Compleat Gamester" (1674 and subsequent editions) Cotton says, under playing the cards at "Picket," "the elder begins and younger follows in suit as at Whisk." But he uses the other spelling in his chapter on the game itself. He observes, "Ruff and Honours (alias Slamm) and Whist, are Games so commonly known in England in all parts thereof, that every Child almost of Eight Years old hath a competent knowledge in that recreation."

After describing ruff-and-honours (see the passage quoted, pp. 36, 37), Cotton adds, "Whist is a game not much differing from this, only they put out the Deuces and take in no stock; and is called Whist from the silence that is to be observed in the play; they deal as before, playing four, two of a side * * * to each Twelve a piece, and the Trump is the bottom Card. The manner of crafty playing, the number of the Game Nine, Honours and dignity of other Cards are all alike, and he that wins most tricks is most forward to win the set."

Cotton's work was afterwards incorporated with Seymour's Court-Gamester (first published 1719). The earlier editions contain no Whist, but after the two books were united (about 1734), Seymour says, "Whist, vulgarly called whisk. The original denomination of this game is Whist, [here Seymour is mistaken] or the silent game at cards." And again, "Talking is not allowed at Whist; the very word implies 'Hold your Tongue.'"

Dr. Johnson does not positively derive Whist from the interjectio silentium imperans; he cautiously explains Whist to be "a game at cards, requiring close attention and silence." Nares, in his "Glossary," has "Whist, an interjection commanding silence;" and he adds, "That the name of the game of Whist is derived from this, is known, I presume, to all who play or do not play." Skeat ("Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 1882") gives, "Whist, hush, silence; a game at cards * * * named from the silence requisite to play it attentively."

Chatto, however, ("Facts and Speculations on the Origin and History of Playing Cards, 1848"), suggests that whisk is derived by substitution from ruff, both of them signifying a piece of lawn used as an ornament to the dress.

The best modern etymologists are of opinion that, whisk and whist, being, like whisper, whistle, wheeze, hush and hist, words of imitative origin, it makes no difference which form is first found. So the received derivation from silence, having a good deal of evidence in its favour, may be accepted until some more conclusive arguments than Chatto's are brought against it.

While Whist was undergoing the changes of name and character already specified, there was for a time associated with it another title, viz., swabbers or swobbers. Fielding, in his "History of the life of the late Mr. Jonathan Wild, the Great," records that when the ingenious Count La Ruse was domiciled with Mr. Geoffrey Snap, in 1682, or, in other words, was in a spunging-house, the Count beguiled the tedium of his in-door existence by playing at Whisk-and-Swabbers, "the game then in the chief vogue." Swift, in "The Intelligencer" (No. v, Dublin, 1728), ridicules Archbishop Tenison for not understanding the meaning of swabbers. "There is a known Story of a Clergy-Man, who was recommended for a Preferment by some great Man at Court, to A. B. C'T. His Grace said, he had heard that the Clergy-Man used to play at Whisk and Swobbers, that as to playing now and then a Sober Game at Whisk for pastime, it might be pardoned, but he could not digest those wicked Swobbers, and it was with some pains that my Lord S——rs could undeceive him." Johnson defines swobbers as "four privileged cards used incidentally in betting at Whist." In Captain Francis Grose's "Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue" (1785), swabbers are stated to be "The ace of hearts, knave of clubs, ace and duce of trumps at Whist." The Hon. Daines Barrington (writing in 1786), says that at the beginning of the century, whisk was "played with what were called Swabbers, which were possibly so termed, because they, who had certain cards in their hand, were entitled to take up a share of the stake, independent of the general event of the game." This was probably the true office of the swabbers, the etymology of the word showing it to be allied to sweep, swoop, swab, swap, and to be first cousin to sweepstakes. Swabbers soon went out of general use, but they may still linger in some local coteries. R. B. Wormald writes thus respecting them in 1873:—Being driven by stress of weather to take shelter in a sequestered hostelry on the Berkshire bank of the Thames, he found four persons immersed in the game of Whist: "In the middle of the hand, one of the players, with a grin that almost mounted to a chuckle, and a vast display of moistened thumb, spread out upon the table the ace of trumps; whereupon the other three deliberately laid down their hands, and forthwith severally handed over the sum of one penny to the fortunate holder of the card in question. On enquiry, we were informed that the process was technically known as a 'swap' (qy. swab or swabber), and was de rigueur in all property constituted whist circles."

After the swabbers were dropped (and it is probable that they were not in general use in the eighteenth century), our national card game became known simply as Whist, though still occasionally spelt whisk. The Hon. Daines Barrington ("Archaeologia," Vol. viii.) says, that Whist in its infancy was chiefly confined to the servants' hall. That the game had not yet become fashionable is evident from the disparaging way in which it is referred to by writers of the period. In Farquhar's comedy of "The Beaux's Stratagem" (1707), Mrs. Sullen, a fine lady from London, speaks in a contemptuous vein of the "rural Accomplishments of drinking fat Ale, playing at Whisk, and smoaking Tobacco." Pope also classes Whist as a country squire's game, in his "Epistle to Mrs. Teresa Blount" (1715)—

Thomson, in his "Autumn" (1730), describes how after a heavy hunt dinner—

Early in the century the points of the game rose from nine to ten ("nine in all," Cotton, 1709; "ten in all," Cotton, 1721; "nine in all," Cotton, 1725; "ten in all," Seymour, 1734, "rectified according to the present standard of play"). Every subsequent edition of Seymour (with which Cotton was incorporated) makes the game ten up. It seems likely that, simultaneously with this change, or closely following it, the practice of playing with the entire pack instead of with but forty-eight cards obtained. This improvement introduced the odd trick, an element of the greatest interest in modern Whist.

At this period (early part of the eighteenth century) there was a mania for card playing in all parts of Europe, and in all classes of society, but Whist had not as yet found favour in the highest circles. Piquet, Ombre, and Quadrille, were the principal games of the fashionable world. But about 1728, the game of Whist rose out of its comparative obscurity.

A party of gentlemen (according to Daines Barrington), of whom the first Lord Folkestone was one, used at this date to frequent the Crown Coffee-house, in Bedford Row, where they studied Whist scientifically. They must have made considerable progress in the game, to judge by the following rules which they laid down:—"Lead from the strong suit; study your partner's hand; and attend to the score."

Shortly after this, the celebrated Edmond Hoyle, the father of the game, published his "Short Treatise" (1742-3). About Hoyle's antecedents, but little is known. He was born in 1672; it is said he was educated for the bar. It has been stated that he was born in Yorkshire, but this is doubtful. At all events, the author, by personal enquiry, has positively ascertained that he did not belong to the family of Yorkshire Hoyles, who acquired estates near Halifax temp. Edward III. It has also been stated that Hoyle was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, in 1742. This, however, is unlikely. At that time, Hoyle was engaged in writing on games, and in giving lessons in Whist, and he was probably living in London. At all events, the only known genuine copy of the first edition of the "Short Treatise" (in the Bodleian), was published in London; and Hoyle afterwards resided in Queen Square. The name Edmund or Edmond is common in both the Yorkshire and Irish families of Hoyle; and probably one Hoyle has been mistaken for another.

Internal evidence shows that Hoyle originally drew up notes for the use of his pupils. His early editions speak of "Purchasers of the Treatise in Manuscript, disposed of the last Winter," and further state that the author of it "has fram'd an Artificial Memory, which takes not off your Attention from your Game; and if required, he is ready to communicate it, upon Payment of one Guinea. And also, he will explain any Cases in the Book, upon Payment of one Guinea more." The cheap spurious editions lament that there was "a Treatise on the Game of Whist lately dispersed among a few Hands at a Guinea Price;" that it was to be procured with no small difficulty; and that the public lay under imposition and hardship in not being able to get the book under a guinea, and by its being reserved only in a few hands.

No doubt, the circulation of these surreptitious copies induced Hoyle to print the manuscript, and to register the "Short Treatise" at Stationers' Hall in November, 1742.

The treatise ran through five editions in one year, and it is said that Hoyle received a large sum for the copyright. This last statement, however, requires verification; at all events, Hoyle continued for years to sign every copy personally, as the proprietor of the copyright. This was done in order to protect the property from further piracy, as the address to the reader shows.

The following is a facsimile of Hoyle's signature, taken from the fourth edition:—

In the fifteenth edition the signature is impressed from a wood block, and in the seventeenth it was announced that Mr. Hoyle was dead. He died in Welbank (Welbeck) Street, Cavendish Square, in August, 1769, aged 97.

One effect of Hoyle's publication was to draw forth a witty skit, entitled "The Humours of Whist. A Dramatic Satire, as Acted every Day at White's and other Coffee-Houses and Assemblies." (1743). The pamphlet commences with an advertisement mimicking Hoyle's address to the reader. The prologue to the play is "supposed to be spoke by a waiter at White's."

The principal characters are Professor Whiston (Hoyle), who gives lessons in the game of Whist; Sir Calculation Puzzle, a passionate admirer of Whist, who imagines himself a good player, yet always loses; Sharpers, Pupils of the Professor, and Cocao, Master of the Chocolate-house. The sharpers are disgusted at the appearance of the book.

On the other hand, the gentlemen are in raptures.

The way in which Sir Calculation introduces Hoyle's Calculations of Chances is very amusing.

The following passage from the same pamphlet mentions the Crown—probably the Crown Coffee-house—and it has been inferred from this that Hoyle himself might have been one of Lord Folkestone's party.

Hoyle is also spoken of in his professional capacity in "The Rambler" of May 8, 1750. A "Lady that has lost her Money" writes, "As for Play, I do think I may, indeed, indulge in that, now I am my own Mistress. Papa made me drudge at Whist 'till I was tired of it; and far from wanting a Head, Mr. Hoyle, when he had not given me above forty Lessons, said, I was one of his best Scholars."

Again, in "The Gentleman's Magazine" for February, 1755, a writer, professing to give the autobiography of a modern physician, says, "Hoyle tutor'd me in the several games at cards, and under the name of guarding me from being cheated, insensibly gave me a taste for sharping."

In the middle of the eighteenth century, Whist was regularly played in fashionable society. In "Tom Jones," Lady Bellaston, Lord Fellamar, and others, are represented as indulging in a rubber. Hoyle also comes in for notice in the following passage in the same work: "I happened to come home several Hours before my usual Time, when I found four Gentlemen of the Cloth at Whisk by my fire;—and my Hoyle, sir;—my best Hoyle, which cost me a Guinea, lying open on the Table, with a Quantity of Porter spilt on one of the most material Leaves of the whole Book. This, you will allow, was provoking; but I said nothing till the rest of the honest Company were gone, and then gave the Fellow a gentle Rebuke, who, instead of expressing any Concern, made me a pert Answer, 'That Servants must have their Diversions as well as other People; that he was sorry for the Accident which had happened to the Book; but that several of his Acquaintance had bought the same for a Shilling; and that I might stop as much in his Wages, if I pleased.'"

In an epic poem on "Whist," by Alexander Thomson, which appeared in 1791, Hoyle was thus invoked—

Hoyle's name also finds a place in Don Juan. Byron, in saying that Troy owes to Homer what Whist owes to Hoyle, scarcely does justice to Hoyle, who was rather the founder than the historian of Whist.

The "Short Treatise" appeared just in the nick of time, when Whist was rising in repute, and when card-playing was the rage. The work became the authority almost from the date of its appearance.

In 1760, the laws of the game were revised by the members of White's and Saunders's Chocolate-houses, then the head quarters of fashionable play. These revised laws (nearly all Hoyle) are given in every edition of Hoyle from this date. Hoyle's laws, as they were called, guided all Whist coteries for a hundred and four years; when the Arlington (now Turf) and Portland Clubs, re-revised the code of the Chocolate-houses. The code agreed to by the Committees of both Clubs was adopted in 1864; it shortly found its way into all Whist circles, deposed Hoyle, and is now (1874) the standard by which disputed points are determined.

One of the chief seats of card-playing, and consequently, of Whist-playing, during the eighteenth century, was Bath. Even Mr. Pickwick is depicted playing Whist there with Miss Bolo, against the Dowager Lady Snuphanuph and Mrs. Colonel Wugsby, in a passage too well known to require quotation. Mr. Pickwick's visit was at a date when the chief glories of Bath had departed. Hoyle's first edition, it will be remembered, was published at Bath, as also was Thomas Mat[t]hews' "Advice to the Young Whist Player" (about 1805)—a sound and useful contribution to Whist literature.

Early in this century, the points of the game were altered from ten to five, and calling honours was abolished. It is doubtful whether this change was for the better. In the author's opinion Long Whist (ten up) is a far finer game than Short Whist (five up); Short Whist, however, has taken such a hold, that there is no chance of our reverting to the former game. According to Clay ("Short Whist," 1864), the alteration took place under the following circumstances: "Some sixty or seventy years back, Lord Peterborough having one night lost a large sum of money, the friends with whom he was playing proposed to make the game five points instead of ten, in order to give the loser a chance, at a quicker game, of recovering his loss. The late Mr. Hoare, of Bath, a very good whist-player, and without a superior at piquet, was one of this party, and has more than once told me the story. The new game was found to be so lively, and money changed hands with such increased rapidity, that these gentlemen and their friends, all of them members of the leading clubs of the day, continued to play it. It became general in the clubs—thence was introduced in private houses—travelled into the country—went to Paris, and has long since * * entirely superseded the whist of Hoyle's day."

Long Whist had long been known in France, but it was not a popular game in that country. Hoyle has been several times translated into French. Whist was played by Louis XV., and under the first Empire was a favorite game with Josephine and Marie Louise. It is on record ("Diaries of a Lady of Quality," 2nd Ed. p. 128), that Napoleon used to play Whist at Würtemburg, but not for money, and that he played ill and inattentively. One evening, when the Queen Dowager was playing against him with her husband and his daughter (the Queen of Westphalia, the wife of Jerome), the King stopped Napoleon, who was taking up a trick that did not belong to him, saying, "Sire, on ne joue pas ici en conquérant." After the restoration, Whist was taken up in France more enthusiastically. "The Nobles," says a French writer, "had gone to England to learn to Think, and they brought back the thinking game with them." Talleyrand was a Whist player, and his mot to the youngster who boasted his ignorance of the game is well known. "Vous ne savez pas le Whiste, jeune homme? Quelle triste vieillesse vous vous préparez!" Charles X. is reported to have been playing Whist at St. Cloud, on July 29, 1830, when the tricolor was waving on the Tuileries, and he had lost his throne.

It is remarkable that the "finest Whist player" who ever lived should have been, according to Clay, a Frenchman, M. Deschapelles (born 1780, died 1847). He published in 1839 a fragment of a "Traité du Whiste" which treats mainly of the laws, and is of but little value to the Whist player.

Before leaving this historical sketch, a few words may be added respecting the modern literature of the game. So far as the present work is concerned, its raison d'être is explained in the preface to the first edition. How far it has fulfilled the conditions of its being, it is not for the author to say. It was followed, however, by three remarkable books, which call for a short notice.

In 1864, appeared "Short Whist," by J. C. (James Clay). Clay's work is an able dissertation on the game, by the most brilliant player of his day. He was Chairman of the Committee appointed to revise the Laws of Whist in 1863. He sat in Parliament for many years, being M.P. for Hull at the time of his death, in 1873.

In 1865, William Pole, F.R.S., Mus. Doc. Oxon, published "The Theory of the Modern Scientific Game of Whist," a work which contains a lucid explanation of the fundamental principles of scientific play, addressed especially to novices, but of considerable value to players of all grades. In 1883, Dr. Pole issued another volume, called "The Philosophy of Whist." This is an essay on the scientific and intellectual aspects of the modern game. It is divided into two parts, "The Philosophy of Whist Play" and "The Philosophy of Whist Probabilities," the latter having been strangely neglected since the publication of Hoyle's "Essay towards Making the Doctrine of Chances Easy" (1754).

These books exhibit the game both theoretically and practically, in the perfect state at which it has arrived during the two centuries that have elapsed since Whist assumed a definite shape and took its present name.

---

Before entering on an analysis of the general principles of the Game of Whist, it is advisable to explain shortly on what foundation these principles rest; for it might be supposed that a demonstration of the propositions contained in these pages is about to be offered; that the chances for and against all possible systems of play have been calculated; and that the one here upheld can be proved to be certainly right, and all others certainly wrong. Such a view would be altogether erroneous. The problem is far too intricate to admit of being treated with mathematical precision. The conclusion that the chances are in favour of a certain line of play is not arrived at by abstract calculation, but by general reasoning, confirmed by the accumulated experience of practised players. The student must not, therefore, expect absolute proof. He must frequently be satisfied if the reasons given appear weighty in themselves, and none weightier can be suggested on the other side; and also with the assurance that the method of play recommended in this work is for the most part that which, having stood the test of time, is generally adopted.

---

The considerations that determine the most advantageous card to lead at the commencement of a hand differ from those which regulate the lead at other periods; for, at starting, the Doctrine of Probabilities is the only guide; while, as the hand advances, each player is able, with more or less certainty, to draw inferences as to the position of some of the remaining cards. The number of the inferences, and the certainty with which they can be drawn from the previous play, constantly increase; hence it not unfrequently happens that, towards the termination of a hand, the position of every material card is known.

In treating of the lead, it will be most convenient to begin by examining the principles which govern the original lead. The application of these principles will require to be somewhat modified in the case of trumps, as will appear hereafter.

---

The first question that arises is, Which is the strongest suit? A suit may be strong in two distinct ways. 1. It may contain more than its proportion of high cards. For example, it may contain two or more honours—one honour in each suit being the average for each hand. 2. It may consist of more than the average number of cards, in which case it is a numerically strong or long suit. Thus a suit of four cards has numerical strength; a suit of five cards great numerical strength. On the other hand a suit of three cards is numerically weak.

In selecting a suit for the lead, numerical strength is the principal point to look to; for it must be borne in mind that aces and kings are not the only cards which make tricks; twos and threes may become quite as valuable when the suit is established—i.e., when the higher cards of the suit are exhausted. To obtain for your own small cards a value that does not intrinsically belong to them, and to prevent the adversary from obtaining it for his, is evidently an advantage. Both these ends are advanced by choosing for your original lead the suit in which you have the greatest numerical strength; for you may establish a suit of this description, while, owing to your strength, it is precisely the suit which the adversary has the smallest chance of establishing against you. A suit that is numerically weak, though otherwise strong, is far less eligible.

Suppose, for example, you have five cards headed by (say) a ten in one suit, and ace, king, and one other (say the two) in another suit. If you lead from the ace, king, two suit, all your power is exhausted as soon as you have parted with the ace and king, and you have given the holder of numerical strength a capital chance of establishing the suit. It is true that this fortunate person may be your partner; but it is twice as likely that he is your adversary, since you have two adversaries and only one partner. On the other hand, if you lead from the five suit, though your chance of establishing it is slight, you, at all events, avoid assisting your adversary to establish his; the ace and king of your three suit, still remaining in your hand, enable you to prevent the establishment of that suit, and may procure you the lead at an advanced period of the hand. This we shall find as we proceed is a great advantage, especially if, in the course of play, you are left with all the unplayed cards, or long cards, of your five suit.

The best suit of all to lead from is, of course, one which combines both elements of strength.

In opening a suit, there is always the danger of finding your partner very weak, or of leading up to a tenace (i.e., the best and third best cards, or the second best guarded) in the hand of the fourth player. If you lead from a very strong suit, these dangers are more than compensated for by the advantages just explained; if your best suit is only moderately strong, the lead is not profitable, but rather the reverse. If all your suits are weak, the lead is very disadvantageous. The hand, however weak, must hold one suit of four at least, and this, if only headed by a ten or a nine, should generally be chosen. Being unable to strike the adversary, you take the best chance of not assisting him.

It follows that a suit consisting of a single card is a very disadvantageous one to lead from; yet no lead is more common, even among players of some experience. The reason assigned in favour of this lead is the possibility of making small trumps. But it is important to observe, that you stand very nearly as good a chance of making trumps by waiting for some one else to open the suit. If the suit is opened by the strong hand, your barrenness will not be suspected; you will be able, if necessary, to win the second round, while you will be free from the guilt of having sacrificed any high card your partner may have possessed in the suit, or of having assisted in establishing a suit for the adversary. Again, your partner, if strong in trumps, will very likely draw yours, and then return your lead, imagining you led from strength. If, indeed, he is a shrewd player, he will, after being taken in once or twice, accommodate his game to yours; but he can never be sure of the character of your lead, and may often miss a great game by not being able to depend upon you. If you have great numerical strength in trumps, the evils of a single-card lead are lessened; but in this case, as will hereafter be shown, it is generally right to lead trumps. In the opinion of the author, it may be laid down as an axiom, that in plain suits (i.e., in suits not trumps) the original lead of a single card is in no case defensible.

Many players will not lead from a strong suit if headed by a tenace; preferring, for instance, to lead from ten, nine, three, to ace, queen, four, two. They argue, that by holding up the ace, queen suit, they stand a better chance of catching the king. So far they are right; but they purchase this advantage too dearly; for the probable loss from leading the weak suit may be taken as greater than the probable gain from holding up the tenace.

Which card of the strong suit should be led originally?—The key to this problem is furnished by the remark, that it conduces to the ultimate establishment of a suit to keep the high or commanding cards of it in the hand that has numerical strength. In the suit of your own choosing, you are presumably stronger than your partner; it is therefore undesirable at once to part with your high cards. Hence it is best, in general, to lead the smallest. Your partner, actuated by a desire to assist in establishing your strong suit, will play his highest card to your lead (see Play of Third Hand, p. 92), and, if he fails to win the trick, will, at all events, force a higher card from the fourth player, and so help to clear the suit for you. Another reason in favour of leading the lowest is, that it increases your chance of making tricks in the first two rounds. For in the first round of a suit the second hand generally puts on his smallest card, as will be seen hereafter. If, therefore, you originally lead the smallest, holding ace and others, the first trick will, in all probability, lie between your partner and the last player; and since there is no reason why the fourth player should hold a better card than the third, it is nearly an even chance that your partner wins the trick. It is certain (bar trumping) that you win the second round; therefore, if the suit is led this way, it is about an even chance that you make the first two tricks. But if you lead out the ace first, it is two to one against your making the second trick, for the adversaries have two hands against your partner's one, and either may hold the king. A third reason for leading the lowest of your suit is, that your partner may prove utterly weak in it; and in this case it is important that you keep a commanding card, to stop the adversary from establishing it.

It follows, when you lead a small card originally, that your partner should conclude you have led from numerical strength.

There are three exceptions to the rule of originally leading the lowest of a strong suit.—1. When you lead from ace with four or more small ones. In this case it is considered best to begin with the ace, lest it should be trumped on the second round. 2. When your suit contains a strong sequence, it is best to lead one of the sequence, in order to prevent the adversaries from winning the first trick with a very small card. 3. When you lead from a suit of more than four cards (not headed by ace and not containing a strong sequence), the fourth-best card is led, for reasons to be afterwards explained. (See Appendix A, pp. 281-6.)

When you intend to lead from a sequence, the card to be selected depends on the nature of the sequence, namely, whether it is a head sequence or an under sequence. By a head sequence is meant a sequence of the highest cards of your suit, i.e., of the cards heading your suit; thus, such a suit as queen, knave ten, six, contains a head sequence of queen, knave, ten. Sequences that do not head your suit are under sequences; thus ace, queen, knave, ten, is an example of an under sequence of queen, knave, ten. You should—

---

(Except as specified in the Analysis of Leads, pp. 64-71).

For, otherwise, your partner is uncertain where the highest lies, and you and he may play two winning cards where one would have sufficed. For instance, if, with queen, knave, ten, you lead the ten, your partner may put the king on it, but he certainly would not on the queen. In addition to this, if there is any finessing to be done in the suit, it can only be by your partner. By finessing is meant playing an inferior card though holding a higher one of the suit, not in sequence with the card played. Thus, to continue the illustration of the sequence of queen, knave, ten. You lead the queen. Your partner has the ace and others. He will not put it on, but will finesse by playing his smallest card; and if the king lies to your left, that card is completely hemmed in. Had you led the ten, your partner would have put on the ace, and the king have been freed.

On the other hand, if you lead from an under sequence, you should lead the lowest, the reason being that, in this case, you wish your partner to put on his highest card. For example, with king, ten, nine, eight, you should lead the eight and not the ten, as if your partner's highest card is the knave, you wish him to put it on that he may not afterwards block your suit by retaining a commanding card of it. Or, suppose your partner's best card is the queen, the lead of the ten would probably induce him to finesse, and thus give the adversary a chance of making the knave the first round, and of retaining the ace in hand, although you and your partner hold two honours in the suit. If your partner puts on the queen, you are still able to finesse the nine when the suit is returned, and this is much more advantageous than your partner's passing the ten. In the first place, the finesse is postponed to the second round, when, more cards having been played, you have more data to guide you as to the policy of making the finesse; and, in the next place, if you have a choice as to whether you or your partner shall finesse in your strong suit, it is, as a rule, more advantageous for you to do it. For, as already explained, it conduces to the establishment of a suit for the strong hand to retain the command of it, and for the presumably weak hand to play his highest cards.

With sequences neither at the top nor at the bottom of a suit (intermediate sequences), the card to lead is the lowest of the intermediate sequence.

Players who adopt American Leads will, however, select the fourth-best card when leading a low card from suits of more than four cards, whether or not the suit contains an under sequence, or an intermediate sequence (with the sole exception of ten, led from king, knave, ten, and small). Thus, from king, knave, ten, nine, whether accompanied by the eight or by smaller cards, they lead the nine; and so on for other combinations. (See Appendix A, pp. 281-6).

---

(See also Appendix A, pp. 281-6, and Appendix C, pp. 289-94.)

[The following analysis should be familiarly known by every player, not only that he himself may follow it, but also that he may form a correct idea of the cards the other players hold, by observing what they lead.]

Ace, king, queen, knave (in trumps).

Lead knave, then ace.

With more than four in suit, lead queen after ace.

With only four in suit, lead king after ace.

Ace, king, queen, knave (in plain suits).

Lead king, then knave.

With more than four in suit, lead queen after knave.

With only four in suit, lead ace after knave.

Ace, king, queen, with or without small ones (in trumps).

Lead queen.

With more than four in suit, lead king after queen.

With only four or three in suit, lead ace after queen.

Ace, king, queen, with or without small ones (in plain suits).

Lead king, then queen.

Ace, king, knave, &c.

Lead king, then ace.

Sometimes it is right, more especially in trumps, to lead king, then to change the suit, and to finesse the knave on the return, particularly if queen is turned up to your right. With more than five trumps it is seldom advisable to wait for the finesse. No positive rule can be laid down, either for trumps or plain suits.

Ace, king, and small (in trumps).

Lead king, then ace, if you have at least five small ones. Otherwise, lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader).

Ace, king, and small (in plain suits).

Lead king, then ace.

King is led before ace to inform your partner that you hold the winning card of your suit, in case you should think fit to change the suit, or in case the fourth player should have none of it. If your partner has none, he should not trump, for, even if you do not hold the ace, you want the adversary to play it, that he may not retain the winning card of your suit.

When opening a plain suit, headed by ace, king, after having been forced to trump, lead the ace first. If you begin with the king, and your partner happens to have none of the suit, he might trump the king, in order to lead again the suit you have already trumped.

If intermediate cards fall and you remain with the command and the next best, you inform your partner of the fact by continuing with the next best. Thus:—You lead king from ace, king, knave, etc. To the king, your partner drops the queen. You should next lead the knave.

Ace, queen, knave, ten, with or without others.

Lead ace, then ten, even though one of your others is the nine.

With more than four in suit, lead knave after ten.

With only four in suit, lead queen after ten.

Ace, queen, knave, and small.

Lead ace.

With more than four in suit, lead knave after ace.

With only four in suit, lead queen after ace.

Ace, queen, ten, &c. (in trumps).

If knave is turned up to your right, lead queen.

Ace and small ones (in trumps).

Lead ace, if you have seven in suit, and then a small one (the original fourth-best if an American Leader).

Lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader), with less than seven in suit.

Obvious variations, taking into account the trump card, are omitted. It is assumed, e.g., that, if your partner has turned up the king, you would lead a small one from ace, queen, knave, &c., or from ace and any number of small cards.

Ace and small ones (in plain suits).

Lead ace, with five or more in suit.

Lead a small one after ace (the original fourth-best if an American Leader).

Lead lowest, with only four in suit, the cards being of a lower denomination than in the leads already enumerated.

King, queen, knave, ten, with or without others.

Lead ten, even though one of your others is the nine.

(a.) If ten wins the trick:—

With more than five in suit, lead knave after ten.

With five in suit, lead queen after ten.

With only four in suit, lead king after ten.

(b.) If ten forces ace:—

With more than four in suit, lead knave after ten.

With only four in suit, lead queen after ten.

The common practice is (or was) to lead queen after ten, in all cases, to inform your partner that the lead was from king, queen, knave, ten, and not from king, knave, ten. But, if the ten wins the trick, the mere fact of continuing with a high card informs your partner that the lead was from king, queen, knave, ten; for, with the only other combination from which ten is first led, (viz., king, knave, ten), if the ten wins, the next lead is a small card.

If the ten forces the ace, and your partner can give you credit for not leading a losing card when you hold a winning one, he is informed, by the second lead of any high card but the king, that you led from king, queen, knave, ten. Therefore, queen and knave are high indifferent cards, and you select the knave to show five or more originally; the queen to show four exactly (see Appendix A).

King, queen, knave, and more than one small.

Lead knave.

With more than five in suit, lead queen after knave.

With only five in suit, lead king after knave.

King, queen, knave, and one small one.

Lead king, then knave.

If the king wins the first trick it is not safe to go on with a small one, ace being sometimes held up by the adversary, especially in trumps.

King, queen, and small ones (in trumps.)

Lead king, if you have seven in suit, or if one of your small ones is the ten.

Lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader), with less than seven trumps, and not holding the ten.

If king is led, and it wins, after king lead a small one (the original fourth-best if an American Leader).

King, queen, and small ones (in plain suits).

Lead king.

If the king wins, after king lead a small one (the original fourth-best if an American Leader).

King, knave, ten, nine, with or without small ones.

Lead nine, even though you also hold the eight.

(a.) If nine wins the trick:—

With more than four in suit, lead ten after nine.

With only four in suit, lead knave after nine.

(b.) If nine forces queen, or both queen and ace:—

With more than five in suit, lead ten after nine.

With five in suit, lead knave after nine.

With only four in suit, lead king after nine.

(c.) If nine forces ace, but not queen, king must be led after nine. Then (third lead),

With more than four in suit originally, lead ten after king.

With only four in suit, lead knave after king.

King, knave, ten, with one or more small ones.

Lead ten.

If the ten wins the trick, lead a small one after ten (the original fourth-best if an American Leader).

If the ten forces the queen, or both queen and ace:

With more than four in suit lead knave after ten.

With four in suit, lead king after ten.

If the ten forces the ace, and not the queen, king must be led after ten.

King, knave, nine, &c. (in trumps).

If ten is turned up to your right, lead knave.

King and small ones.

From all strong suits headed by king, other than those already enumerated, lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader).

Queen, knave, ten, nine, with or without others.

Lead queen, then nine, even though one of your others is the eight.

With more than four in suit, lead ten after nine.

With only four in suit, lead knave after nine.

Queen, knave, ten, and small.

Lead queen.

With more than four in suit, lead ten after queen.

With only four in suit, lead knave after queen.

Queen, knave, nine, &c. (in trumps).

If ten is turned up to your right, lead queen.

Queen, knave, and small ones.

From all strong suits headed by queen, knave (or by queen), other than those already enumerated, lead a small one (the fourth-best, if an American Leader).

From queen, knave, nine (six or more in suit), if an American Leader, lead fourth-best. If not, lead queen.

Knave, ten, nine, eight, with or without small, ones.

In trumps, if queen or king is turned up to your left, lead knave. Otherwise, in trumps or plain suits,

(a.) If the second hand is known to adopt the practice, even though numerically weak in the suit, of not covering an honour with an honour (other than the ace, see p. 88), lead eight.

With more than five in suit, lead nine after eight.

With five in suit, lead ten after eight.

With only four in suit, lead knave after eight.

(b.) If the second hand adheres to the old practice of covering an honour with an honour when numerically weak in the suit, lead knave, then eight. And

With more than four in suit, lead nine after eight.

With only four in suit, lead ten after eight.

Knave, ten, nine, and small.

In trumps, if king or queen is turned up to your left, lead knave. Otherwise, in trumps or plain suits,

(a.) If the second hand, when numerically weak, does not cover an honour with an honour (other than ace), lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader).

(b.) If the second hand, when numerically weak, covers an honour with an honour, lead knave. And,

With more than four in suit, lead nine after knave.

With only four in suit, lead ten after knave.

Knave, ten, eight, &c. (in trumps).

If nine is turned up to your right, lead knave.

Knave, ten, and small ones.

From all strong suits headed by knave, ten (or by knave), with the exceptions enumerated, lead a small one (the fourth-best if an American Leader).

Suits of four or more cards without an honour.

Lead a small card (the fourth-best if an American Leader).

---

When it is your fate to open a numerically weak suit, your object should be to do as little harm as possible. You cannot expect to win many tricks, so you must do all you can to assist or strengthen your partner by leading high or strengthening cards; for, by leading the highest of a suit numerically weak, you take the best chance of keeping the strength in your partner's hand, should he happen to hold it.

You will not often be driven to open a weak suit originally, as one of your suits must contain as many as four cards. But it may so turn out that your four-card suit is composed of very small cards indeed, in which case you might prefer to open a suit containing better cards, though numerically weaker. Every one can see that ace, king, queen, is a better suit to open than five, four, three, two; but, as you descend in one scale and ascend in the other, there comes a point where the two descriptions of strength nearly or quite balance. With hands containing only a suit of four small cards—say none higher than the seven or eight, and suits of three cards of higher value—the choice is sometimes difficult. Also, with hands in which your only four-card suit is the trump suit, you might sometimes deem it advisable to open one of the other suits, as a smaller evil than leading a trump. As a rule, when you are in doubt, stick to the general principle, and lead from your four-card suit, even though it is the trump suit.

Whenever you decide on opening a suit of but three cards, choose, if possible, one in which you hold a sequence which may be of benefit to your partner, as queen, knave, ten; queen, knave, and one small one; knave, ten, and one other, and so on, and lead the highest. If you have no sequence, lead from your strongest weak suit. Thus, two honours not in sequence, and one small one, is a better lead than ace and two small ones, or king and two small ones. These, again, should be chosen in preference to queen and two small ones. When leading from a numerically weak suit that contains ace, king, or queen, but no sequence, if you have any indication from the previous play that your partner is strong in the suit (as will be explained in Section 4), lead the highest. But having no guide as to his strength lead the lowest. You run the risk of making your partner think you have led from numerical strength; but, on the other hand, by leading out the high card, you at once give up the command of the suit, and, unless your partner has strength in it (the chances being against this), you leave yourself at the mercy of the opponents.

The case is different with numerically weak suits headed by a knave or a lower card. Of these suits you should lead the highest; by retaining such a card as the knave you would scarcely ever be able to stop the adversaries from establishing the suit, should they be strong in it; and, by leading out the high card, you do all you can to aid your partner, should he have strength.

Ace and one other, king and one other, or queen and one other, are very bad suits to lead from. By holding them up you and your partner stand a better chance of making tricks in the suit; and if it should be the adversaries' suit (the chances being two to one that it is) you keep the power of obstructing it and of obtaining the lead at advanced periods of the hand. If you lead from ace, king only, lead ace, then king.

It follows that when you lead a high card in the first round of a suit, and in the next drop a lower one (subject to the rules respecting leads from sequences and the lead from suits of five or more cards), your partner should infer you have led from a weak suit. Thus, suppose you lead a nine, which is called an equivocal card, as it comes from both strong and weak suits. If in the second round your partner can infer that you hold a higher card, he knows you have led from strength. But if in the second round you lead (say) the eight, your partner may be equally certain that the former card was the highest of your weak suit.

---

When you obtain the lead after one or more tricks have been played, the question arises whether or not you should open a fresh suit. If you have had the lead before, it is generally advisable to pursue your original lead, for you thus take the best chance of establishing the suit, and you open a fresh suit to a disadvantage.

The fall of the cards in the previous rounds may cause you to alter your game. Thus, the previous play may have already established your suit, or may have so nearly established it as to justify you in leading trumps, as hereafter explained; or your partner may have shown a very strong suit, or a strong trump hand, which may modify your game. Again, your partner may prove utterly weak in your suit; you would then often discontinue it, unless holding the winning cards or a strong sequence, because, with these exceptions, your continuing it gives the adversary the opportunity of finessing against you, and of cutting up your suit; or you may sometimes discontinue a suit if you expect it will be trumped (as will be further explained in Sections 13-16); but, failing such indications, it is best, as a rule, to pursue the original lead.

If you have not had the lead before, it is in most cases advisable to open your strong suit, when you possess great strength in any suit, for you open such suit to advantage; but with weak or only moderately strong suits, which you open to a disadvantage, you would, as a rule, do better to return your partner's original lead, or to lead up to the weak suit of your right-hand adversary, or through the strong suit of your left-hand adversary. When in doubt as to opening your own suit or returning your partner's, you should, as a general rule, be guided by your strength in trumps. With a strong trump hand play your own game; with a weak trump hand play your partner's game.

If your partner has had a lead, and you are thoroughly conversant with the system of leading developed in Sections 2 and 3, and with the Analysis of Leads (pp. 64-71), you know by the value of the card he has led whether he is strong or weak in that suit, unless he has led an equivocal card, which is led from both strong and weak suits. In this case, if you have no evidence from your own hand, or from the fall of the cards, you presume, with a good partner, that he has led from strength. But you mostly have some evidence; for instance, if he leads a ten originally, he has led from king, queen, knave, ten; from king, knave, ten; or the highest of his suit. If you hold—or either adversary plays—king or knave, you know that your partner has led the highest of his suit. But, in the absence of these cards, and especially if the ten wins the first round, or falls to the ace or queen, you may conclude that your partner's lead was from strength, and you would do perfectly right to return it.

When you have won the first trick in your partner's lead cheaply, you must be cautious in returning it, as the strength must be between your partner and your right-hand adversary. For example, say A, Y, B, Z, are the four players, and that they sit in this order round the table, so that A leads and Z is last player. If A leads a small card of a plain suit, Y plays a small one, and B (third player) puts on his best card, the queen, which wins the trick, it is clear that Z can have neither ace nor king; A cannot have them both, or he would have led one, therefore Y must have one of them at least; and, if B returns the lead, he leads up to Y's strength, and may cut up his partner's suit.

By observing the card led by either adversary, you can similarly tell whether he has led from strength or weakness; so also you can judge from the card played third hand by the adversary whether he is weak, it being presumed that the third player puts on his best. It is advantageous to lead up to a weak suit, because you compel the second hand to put on a high card, or give your partner the opportunity of finessing. It is generally less advantageous to lead through a strong suit, unless you are sure that the second hand is not very strong, and that the fourth hand is weak. Otherwise, by continuing the suit, you may be establishing it for the adversary, and getting rid of the command of it from your partner's hand.

In discussing leads from weak suits it was supposed, for the sake of convenience, that the leader had no indication from the play to guide him. But in practice, in by far the greater number of cases, weak suits are opened late in a hand when inference from previous play has given an insight into the strength or weakness of the several players. Thus, you commence with your strong suit; your partner fails to show any strength in it. After several other tricks are played you get the lead again, remaining with (say) king and two others of your first lead. You do not wish to take one of the guards from your king, and you do not deem it advisable to lead a card which your partner may be obliged to trump. You therefore try another suit. By this time you know, either by the adversaries' leads what their strong suits are, or by the players' discards (i.e., by the cards they throw away when not able to follow suit,) what their weak suits are, as will be explained under discarding. Guided by these indications, you make choice of a suit for your second lead in which your partner is probably strong, and under such circumstances you would, as a rule, lead the highest of the suit of your second choosing, if numerically weak in it.

When you have led a strengthening card, and it wins the trick, you can rarely do better than continue with your next highest. For example: from queen, knave, and three you lead the queen, which goes round. It hardly requires to be stated that you make the best use of your suit by continuing with the knave. When your strengthening card does not win, the course of the play is the only guide as to whether you should continue the suit. The application of the considerations advanced in this Section will generally inform you where the strong and weak suits lie, and you will act accordingly, giving your partner his strong suit, or, if he has not shown one, leading up to the weak suit of the right-hand adversary, or through the strong suit of the left-hand adversary.

It has several times been assumed that it is advantageous to have the lead at advanced periods of a hand; we now see one principal reason why it is so. The leader knows by observation where the strong and the weak suits lie, and he will generally be able to make use of this knowledge in assisting his partner, or in obstructing his opponents.

The principles explained in the preceding pages apply mainly to the original lead, or to leads early in a hand. They apply also to leads generally; but, at advanced periods of the hand, and towards its close, their application is frequently modified by inferences from the previous play, and by the state of the score. Examples of departure from the rules here laid down will be presented in the illustrative hands.

In the second round of a suit—

---

When you return your partner's lead, the card you should choose to lead the second round depends on the number of cards of the suit you have remaining. Thus, if you remain with three cards, you must have had four at first. You therefore had strength in the suit, and you should return the smallest of the three remaining cards, agreeably to the principle that with strength it is to your advantage to retain the command in your own hand. If you remain with two cards only, you should return the higher one, to strengthen your partner; and, similarly, if you have discarded one of a four-suit, and are left with two only at the time you return it, you have destroyed the numerical power of your suit, and should therefore treat it as a weak suit, and return the higher card of the two remaining in your hand.

The advantages of this principle are numerous. In the case that you and your partner are both numerically strong, the return of the lowest prevents him from finessing in a suit which must be trumped third round. Further, if your hand is weak, you naturally return a suit in which you infer that your partner is strong. You then return a strengthening card to get a high card of your partner's strong suit out of his way, and you enable him to finesse if he thinks proper, and so to keep the command of his suit in his own hand.

It is true that with two small cards only (say the five and the six) you do not strengthen your partner by returning the six. But there is a collateral advantage in keeping to the rule even with small cards—you enable a good partner to calculate how many you have left of the suit, and often where the remainder of it lies. Thus, your partner leads a small card of a suit of which you have king, three, and two. You, as third player, put on the king. If you return the suit, you return the three, and not the two, when it ought to be inferred, either that you have returned the smallest of a suit of four or more, or that you have no more of the suit left, or the two only. When your two comes down in the third round it ought to be certain that you have no more. If your partner has confidence in you, he can often calculate what you have left before the third round is played; thus, in the above instance, your partner, not having the two himself, and seeing that it does not drop from the adversaries, concludes, with tolerable certainty, that you remain, after the second round, with the two and no more.

There are two exceptions to the rule of play above stated: 1. When you hold the winning card you return it, whatever number of cards you hold, lest it should be trumped the third round, or, your partner, imagining it to be against him, should finesse; and 2. When you hold the second and third best, in plain suits, you return the highest. Thus, suppose you have queen, knave, ten, and one small one of a suit of which your partner leads a small one, you (third hand) put on the ten, which is won by (say) the ace. If you afterwards return the suit, you should return the queen, for you not only force out the king, if against you, but you also do not block your partner's suit, should he have led from great numerical strength, say five cards to the nine, an advantage which you lose by returning the small one.

It should also be observed that, occasionally, when you return your adversary's strong lead, you do not lead the higher of two remaining cards, especially if you hold the second best guarded. For example, you are A; Y is your left-hand adversary. Y has led a king, which was won by the ace, leaving Y with the queen and others. You remain with knave and one small one. If you are driven to return this suit, you should return the small one. The queen will probably be put on second hand, and you will remain with the best.

---

In the first round of a suit, you should generally,

---

You presume that the first hand has led from strength, and, if you have a high card in his suit, you lie over him when it is led again; whereas, if you play your high card second hand, you get rid of a commanding card of the adversary's suit, and, when it is returned, the original leader finesses against you. Besides this, the third player will put on his highest card, and, if it is better than yours, you have wasted power to no purpose.

If, however, you have a sequence of high cards, you should put on one of the sequence second hand, for, if you pass the trick altogether, the third hand may win with a very low card, or, with his low card, may force a high one from your partner. The chief objection to playing an unsupported high card does not apply, as the leader cannot successfully finesse against you in the next round.

With a moderate sequence, such as queen, knave—knave, ten—ten, nine—you play the lowest of the sequence if you are numerically weak; but, with more than three cards of the suit, you pass a small card led, agreeably to the principle already discussed—that in weak suits you play to strengthen your partner, but in strong ones you leave him to help you. For instance: the leader (A) has king, ten, nine, eight, seven of a suit; the second player (Y) has queen, knave, and one small one; the fourth player (Z) has ace and two small ones. A leads a small card; Y should play the knave; if he does not, the card led forces Z's ace. It is true that this happens also if Y passes with queen, knave, and two small ones; but Y, in this case, has a guard to his queen and knave, and is left with the two winning cards after the second round of the suit.

With a sequence lower than ten, nine, there is no advantage in putting on one of the sequence; so the lowest should then be played second hand, in conformity with the general principle.

---

When you do not head a trick, you throw away your lowest card to economise your strength. Thus, with queen and two small ones, you would not throw the queen to king led. It is an error to suppose that it is of no consequence which card you play when you hold only small cards or cards in sequence. It is not of much consequence as regards merely the chance of making tricks; but it is of great importance in affording information to partner.

Thus, suppose the players to be as before, A, Y, B, Z. A leads the three of a suit, Y plays the five, B the four. It ought to be certain that B has no more of the suit, it being presumed that he, not being able to head the trick, throws away his smallest. If he afterwards plays the two, and it turns out that he previously played the four through carelessness, his partner loses confidence, and gives up all hopes of drawing correct inferences from his play.

The principle applies equally to cards in sequence. Thus, say queen is led, and you (second hand) hold ace and king; if you put on the king, your partner gains the very important information that you have the ace also. For queen is not led from ace, queen, &c., so the leader cannot have the ace; the third hand cannot have it, or he would win the king; and the fourth, not having it himself, infers that you have it. If you put on the ace, not only could he not tell that you hold the king, but would assume that it lay with the leader's partner. The principle, though stated for the sake of convenience in respect of the second hand, applies to the third and fourth hands also. (For a fuller examination of this point see Section 12.)

---

(See Note on Analysis of Leads, p. 64.)

Ace, king, queen, &c.

Play lowest of ace, king, queen sequence.

Ace, king, knave, &c.

Play king (but see p. 89).

On the second round of the suit, it becomes a matter of judgment whether you should play ace or finesse knave. No positive rule can be laid down.

Ace, king, &c.

Play king.

In trumps it is sometimes right to pass, leaving the chance of the first trick to your partner.

Obvious alterations on account of the trump card are omitted. It is clear that, with ace, king, &c., if your partner has turned up the queen, you should play a small one; and that, with ace, king, knave, if your right hand adversary has turned up the queen, you should play the knave; and so on for other cases.

Ace, queen, knave, &c.

Play lowest of queen, knave sequence.

Ace, queen, ten, &c.

In trumps, play ten, or with cards in sequence, the lowest of the ten sequence.

In plain suits, if strong enough in trumps to lead them, play ten, or lowest of sequence; if weak in trumps, play queen (but see p. 89).

With ace, queen, ten only, play ten, whether strong in trumps or not.

Ace, queen, &c.

Small card led.

In trumps, play a small one.

In plain suits, with five in suit, play a small one if strong in trumps; the queen if weak in trumps.

Knave led.

Play ace. It is useless to cover with the queen, as the leader cannot hold the king (see Analysis of Leads).

These instructions assume ordinary original leads from strength. If ace or queen is turned up, some players lead knave, from king, knave, ten. If you know this is the practice of your right hand adversary, you should exercise your judgment as to covering with ace or queen.

Also towards the close of a hand, knave might be led from king, knave for various reasons, perhaps as the best chance of saving or winning the game or a point, or as a false card. No rule can be laid down for such cases.

Ten or nine led.

Play queen.

Ace, knave, ten, &c.

In trumps, play ten, or with cards in sequence with the ten, the lowest of the sequence.

In plain suits, play a small one.

The reason for the difference is that, in trumps a small card may be led from king, queen, &c.; but in plain suits, not. Hence as, in plain suits, the king or queen must be in the third or fourth hand, your strength would be wasted by covering.

Ace and small ones.

Play a small one.

As before observed, the original lead of a small card from strength is assumed.

If, after several tricks have been played, you particularly want the lead, or you suspect the possibility of a lead from a single card, or one trick is of importance, you would often be right to play the ace. Again, no rule can be laid down.

King, queen, knave, &c.

Play the lowest of the king, queen, knave sequence.

King, queen, &c.

Small card led.

Play queen.

In trumps it is sometimes right to pass, unless you hold ten also, or only three in suit.

Knave led.

The usual practice is to cover with the queen. But, it can be shown by calculation that, if the lead is from knave, ten, nine, and small, more is gained than lost, in the long run, by passing.

The best lead from knave, ten, nine, &c., is disputed; and so also is the question of covering.

King, knave, ten, &c.

Play the lowest of the knave, ten sequence.

Queen, knave, ten, &c.

Play ten, or lowest of sequence.

Knave, ten, nine, &c.

Play nine, or lowest of sequence.

Queen, knave, and small; knave, ten, and small; ten, nine, and small.

Play as directed at pp. 82-3.

Covering or passing second hand.

If an honour is led, and you have the ace, as a rule play the ace.

If an honour is led, and you hold an honour, not the ace, pass as a rule.

It was formerly the practice to cover an honour with an honour, if numerically weak. Calculation shows more is gained than lost, in the long run, by passing. But, if a strengthening card is led, late in a hand, it would often be right to cover. No positive rule can be laid down for the play of the second hand under such circumstances. When you have the fourchette it is almost always right to cover. Thus, if knave is led, and you hold queen, ten, &c., put on the queen.

If a ten is led, and you hold queen and one small one, play queen. The lead is probably from king, knave, ten, &c., and the queen may save your partner's ace. With queen and two small ones, or with other combinations not enumerated as those with which a high card should be played second hand, pass.

If a nine is led, and you hold king and one small one, play king. The leader must have opened an ace suit (either ace, queen, ten, nine, or ace, knave, ten, nine), assuming him to have led from a suit of four cards. The same applies if you hold king, nine, and eight is led.

If a medium card is led from a suit of at least four cards, three being higher than the card led, and you hold cards that (together with the leader's cards) make up a sequence, cover with the lowest card you can. For example:—The original lead is an eight. You (second hand) hold ace, king, ten, with or without small ones. If the lead was from queen, knave, nine, eight, as is most probable, and the ten is put on, it will win the trick.

Again: the original lead is a seven. You hold ace, queen, knave, eight. If the seven is the lowest of a four card suit, the lead must have been from king, ten, nine, seven. Therefore, the eight put on will win the trick.

The same applies, if the leader of an ace follows with a medium card. For example:—Ace is led originally. The next lead of an American Leader is, say, the eight. You had originally king, queen, ten, four, and you played the four to the ace. The leader must hold knave, nine and small. You should, therefore play the ten. And, observe, the play would be the same, if the second lead of a player who does not follow the American system were the seven, as then he must hold knave, nine, eight.

If a small card is led, and you hold an honour and a small card, pass the trick as a rule; for by putting on the honour you expose your weakness, and enable the original leader to finesse against you on the second round. The principal general exception to playing a small card second hand, is when the circumstances of the hand cause you to seize any chance of getting the lead, as when you want to stop a lead of trumps, or to lead trumps yourself. Then it is often right to play a high card second hand, when unsupported by another high card.

Also, in trumps, if king or queen is turned up, and you hold it singly guarded (i.e., if you have only one other trump), it is generally advisable to put on the turn-up, second hand. And if you hold king or queen, singly guarded, and a superior honour is turned up to your right, you should play the king or queen.

---

In the second round of a suit, if you have the winning card, you should—in plain suits—generally put it on second hand, subject to a finesse that will certainly be successful; but in trumps there are many cases in which you should not, especially if you have numerical strength in trumps, and a good hand besides. Your winning trump must make, and, by passing the second round, you perhaps enable your partner to win with a third best trump—or even a smaller one—yourself retaining the command.

If, when led through in the second round of a suit, you conclude from the previous fall of the cards that the second best card is to your right, it is sometimes advisable to put on the third best. You thus save your partner's hand if he holds the best. For instance: if knave is led in the first round, and your partner (then second player) puts on king, which wins the trick, it is clear (if the ten is your best) that your partner has the ace, for the third player could not win the king, and the leader could not have led from ace, knave. If your right-hand adversary afterwards returns the suit through you, you should put on the ten in order to save your partner's ace.

---

(See also "Whist Developments." De La Rue & Co.)

In the first round of a suit, you should generally

---

in order to strengthen your partner. You presume that he leads from his strong suit, and wants to get the winning cards of it out of his way; you, therefore, do not finesse, but play your highest, remembering that you play the lowest of a sequence.

With ace, queen (and, of course, ace, queen, knave, &c., in sequence) you do finesse, for, in this case, the finesse cannot be left to your partner. In trumps you may finesse ace, knave, if an honour is turned up to your right. Some players finesse knave with king, knave, &c.; but it is contrary to principle to finesse in your partner's strong suit.

If your partner leads a high card originally, you assume it is led from one of the combinations given in the Analysis of Leads (pp. 64-71), and your play third hand must be guided by a consideration of the combination led from. With ace, you pass queen led; you are then in much the same position as though a small card were led, and you finessed with ace, queen.

Knave, led originally, is from king, queen, knave, &c. (some players lead knave from knave, ten, nine, &c.) In either case, if you hold ace with one small card, play the ace; with more than one small card, pass (see p. 98). If your only honour is the king, you should pass knave led. For, the second hand having passed, you assume ace to be to your left (p. 88). Should the queen be there also, you waste the king by covering; and if queen is to your right, the knave forces the ace.

Ten may be led originally from king, queen, knave, ten, or from king, knave, ten, &c. If you hold ace, you should put it on; but if you hold queen, you should pass. Holding both ace and queen, your play depends on whether you wish to obtain the lead on the first round of the suit.

If your partner opens a suit, late in a hand, with a high card, your play, third hand, will depend on your judgment of the character of the lead. If it is probable that your partner has led from a weak suit, you will often be right to finesse king, knave, &c., or to pass his card altogether, so as not to give up the entire command of the suit. Thus, if ten is led and you hold ace, knave, &c., it is clear that the card led is the highest your partner holds in the suit. You therefore pass, and unless both king and queen are to your left, you remain with the tenace. Similar remarks apply to a forced lead of knave, when you hold ace, ten, &c. If you have considerable strength in a suit in which a strengthening card is led, you must be guided by your strength in trumps. Thus, your partner leads knave from a weak suit, and you hold ace, king, and small ones. You may, as a rule, pass the knave if you are strong in trumps, but not if weak.

In the second round of a suit, if you (third player) hold the best and third best cards, and you have no indication as to the position of the intermediate card, your play should again depend on your strength in trumps. If weak in trumps, secure the trick at once; if strong in trumps, and especially if strong enough to lead a trump (see Management of Trumps, pp. 120-24), should the finesse succeed, it is generally right to make it. If you hold second and fourth best, you may nearly always finesse; for you conclude that the winning card is over you in the fourth hand, since your partner has not led it, and the second player has not put it on. If the third best lies over you also, you cannot prevent the tenace from making, and your only chance, therefore, is to finesse. Thus, if you lead a small card from queen, ten, and two small ones, your partner wins the first trick with the king, and returns a small one. The ace is certainly to your left; you therefore finesse the ten, for if your left-hand adversary holds ace and knave he must make them both; but, otherwise, your ten forces the ace, and you are left with the best. In trumps, the winning card is often held up by the adversary, but you must submit to this contingency, and generally finesse.

It is of no use to finesse against your right-hand adversary in a suit in which he has shown weakness. For instance, if the second hand has none of the suit led, and does not trump it, you (third hand) should not finesse a major tenace (i.e., the best and third best cards). This often occurs in the second or third round of a suit; also, if your partner (third player) has won a trick very cheaply, and the suit is returned, it is rarely of any use to finesse if you have the winning card.

In some few positions, however, it is necessary to finesse, even if the second player holds nothing. Thus, your partner leads a knave, and the second hand renounces (i.e., does not follow suit); if you (third player) hold king, it is useless to cover, as ace, queen in the fourth hand must make. Again, you have king, and two small trumps; your partner leads a small one; the second hand renounces. If you want one trick to win or save the game, you (third player) play a small trump, when the fourth player will be obliged to lead up to your king guarded.

The state of the game and of the score will often direct as to a finesse late in a hand. Thus, if you hold a winning card, and want one trick to save or win the game, of course you should not run any risk. A finesse against even one card is generally wrong, if, by playing otherwise, you prevent the adversary from scoring three or five. A finesse is almost always bad, if by not finessing you insure the odd trick, as that makes a difference of two to the score. In the opposite case, a finesse is generally right (sometimes even against more than one card), if its success gives you the odd trick, or puts you at the score of three or five.

The considerations as to finessing and the course of play generally, that come in as the hand proceeds, are so complicated, and depend so much on inferences from previous play, and on the state of the score, that one can scarcely do more than to state a few broad rules, and to add some examples. Illustrations of the conduct of the hand at advanced periods will be found in Sections 17 and 18 (pp. 134-155), and more in the hands.

---

The fourth player having, with a few exceptions, merely to win the trick, if against him, his play involves no further development of general principles.

The exceptional cases, where the fourth hand should not win the trick though he can, or should win his partner's trick in order to get the lead, depend so much on the previous fall of the cards, that they can best be illustrated in the hands.

---

(See also Appendix B., pp. 287-8.)

In the foregoing chapters it has been incidentally stated that you should

9. KEEP THE COMMAND OF YOUR ADVERSARY'S SUIT: AND
10. GET RID OF THE COMMAND OF YOUR PARTNER'S SUIT.

The reasons will be obvious to those who are familiar with the previous pages; in the first case, you obstruct the adversaries' suits, and prevent their establishing them; in the second case, you assist in clearing the suit for your partner.

Thus, with ace and queen only of a suit led by your partner, if you win with the queen, play out the ace at once; but, if the suit is led by your adversary, keep the ace in your hand. If you play out the winning card of the opponent's suit in hopes of trumping the next round, which is often done by those who play a trumping game, you do just what the adversaries want; for the lead of the ace gives them valuable assistance towards bringing in their suit when trumps are out.

Though the advantage of getting rid of the command of a suit, of which your partner has declared numerical strength, is recognised theoretically, the application of the principle is much neglected in practice. In order to get rid, at the proper moment, of the command of your partner's suit, a thorough knowledge of the Analysis of Leads is requisite, as the following examples will show:—1. Your partner leads ace, originally, of a plain suit. He has led from ace, queen, knave, &c., or from a suit of five cards at least. You have four of the suit, say ten, nine, eight, two. To his ace, you should play the eight, not the two. All follow suit, and your partner continues with knave, or with a small card. You now know for certain that he led from five at least. You should play the nine, even if the second hand puts on a winning card or a trump. When the suit is led again, you should play the ten. Your partner is left with two small cards, and you do not block his suit; if you had played two, eight, nine, it is very probable that you would keep the command of the suit with the ten. 2. If instead of ten, nine, eight, two, you held, say, ten, nine, three, two, and your partner leads ace and a small one, you should similarly play the nine on the second round. 3. If your partner led from ace, queen, knave and one small one (as you will be informed by his leading queen after ace), you cannot block the suit; but, if you have played the eight to the ace, as in Example 1, you must still play the nine to the queen, or you have called for trumps (see p. 125). You lose nothing by this, as you and your partner still retain the winning cards of the suit. If on the third round you find it necessary to play your small card, you have not called for trumps (see Appendix B, pp. 287-8). 4. Similarly, you have king, queen, and two small cards of a plain suit of which your partner leads ace and a small one. All follow suit to the ace; the second hand trumps the small one. You should play the queen, and to the third round the king. 5. Your partner leads knave of a plain suit originally, from king, queen, knave, and at least two small cards. The second hand plays a small card. You (third hand) hold ace, &c. Whether or not you should put on the ace, depends on the number of small cards you hold. Having only one small card, you should play the ace, that you may not block the suit. Having more than one small card, you pass the knave. Suppose the knave wins the trick, and your partner continues with king or queen. If you now remain with ace and one small card, you should put on the ace; but, if you have ace and two small cards left, you should pass again, as you still have the power of getting rid of the command on the third round. 6. To continue the previous example. Say the two rounds of your partner's suit have resulted in the fall of seven cards of it, and that you still have ace and a small one left. Your adversary now leads the suit a third time, that his partner may trump it. You should play the ace, keeping the small card of the suit of which your partner will still hold two cards. 7. If your partner leads a small card of a plain suit originally, and you can tell from the fall of the cards that the card led was not his absolute lowest, you know he led from a suit of more than four (see Analysis of Leads), and if you had four originally, you should be prepared to get rid of the command on the subsequent rounds. For example:—Your partner leads eight. All follow suit, and the queen falls. On obtaining the lead again, your partner leads the six, showing that he led from at least five cards. Ace comes out. One adversary does not follow suit. You held, originally, knave, five, four, three, and have played the three and the four. Your partner now has the lead again, and leads the king of his suit. You, holding knave and one small one, would play very badly to retain the knave. You should throw the knave on the king, and your partner's suit is freed. 8. Your hand contains four cards, viz., ace and one small spade (spades not having been led), and two losing diamonds; your partner has nothing but spades, of which he leads the king. If you pass it you cannot make more than two tricks, for the winning diamonds are against you in one hand; but, if you win your partner's king, and return the small one, and your partner has led from king, queen, you still win two tricks, and get a chance of making three or four.

A collateral advantage of playing as advised, is that a good partner will often know how many of his suit you still have in hand. Thus, he leads knave, which you pass; he continues with queen, which you win. It ought to be a certainty that you remain with one small card of his suit and no more. If you pass again, it should be equally certain, when your ace comes down in the third round, that you have one small card of the suit in hand. Again: your partner leads ace and knave; knave is won by the adversary with the king. You, holding ten, nine, eight, deuce, have played eight and nine of the suit. If the winner of the trick does not lead a trump, your partner would infer, with tolerable certainty, that you remain with the deuce and ten of his suit, as no one is asking for trumps (see p. 125) and no one has played the deuce in two rounds.

In trumps, the case is somewhat different, as you cannot block your partner's trump suit. It is then only advisable to get out of his way, if you see from the fall of the cards that it is essential he should proceed with trumps. Thus: with ace and one small trump you would not put ace on his knave led, unless very desirous of three rounds of trumps immediately. Moreover, in trumps, your partner can count your hand in another way; for with four trumps you would echo, as will be fully explained under Management of Trumps (p. 128).

You help your partner to get rid of the command of your suit by leading the lowest of a sequence, notwithstanding that it heads your suit, when you want him to win your card if he can. For this reason you lead ten from king, queen, knave, ten; ace, knave from ace, queen, knave, and at least two small cards; and so on. In this last case, if your partner has king, whether he should put it on your knave, or not, depends on how many small cards of the suit he holds. If, when you lead knave, he remains with king and one small one, he should win the knave with the king; but if he has king and two small ones remaining, he should pass the knave, for precisely the same reasons as those given in the previous examples. Again, suppose you are left with knave, ten, and others of a suit, of which your partner can only have king and another (ace and queen being out), though it is uncertain whether he does hold the king. You would cause him to get rid of the king by leading the ten; whereas, if you led the knave, he probably would not part with the king.

Experienced players frequently endeavour to steal a trick, or to obtain the entire command of a suit (i.e., to keep a sufficient number of winning or commanding cards in it to make every trick), by underplaying. Underplay is keeping up the winning card, generally in the second round of a suit, by leading a low card, though holding the best.

Thus, suppose a small trump is led, and you (fourth player) hold ace, knave, and two small ones, and you win with one of the small ones. If, at a later period of the hand, you return a small trump, you will very likely cause your left-hand adversary to believe that your partner has the ace; consequently, if your left-hand adversary has the king, he may not put it on; your partner will win the second round with the queen, and you will retain the command of the trump suit.

Underplay is an extempore stratagem depending on observation of the previous fall of the cards, and, therefore, best capable of explanation by examples. Thus: A, finding his partner strong in trumps, leads the seven. The king is put on by Y (second hand), which B (third hand) wins, holding ace, queen, ten, nine, eight. It is evident to B that A's seven was his highest trump, as the only higher one in is the knave, and A would never lead the seven from knave, seven. The king having been put on second hand, B concludes that Y, in all probability, holds at most one small trump more. The knave is, to a moral certainty, in Z's hand. B, by leading the eight in the second round, will probably win the trick, and unless Z had four trumps originally, will catch the knave with the queen in the third round. (Further examples of underplay occur in the hands.)

Players should be on their guard against this manœuvre, particularly when second hand, in the second round of a suit, they hold the second best card guarded, and the adversary has been playing a strong game (as by leading trumps), and is left with the long trump, or is certain to be able to obtain the lead again. Then it is often right for the second hand to stick on a singly-guarded second best card, especially if that is the only chance of making it. In the case stated in the previous paragraph, Z's only chance of making the knave, if singly guarded, is to put it on second hand. For, if the queen with small ones is in A's hand, A is sure to finesse on the return of the suit by his partner. Again, take this case: A leads the six of diamonds; Y, with knave, ten, and a small one, puts on the ten; B plays the king, and Z wins it with the ace. Presently, A obtains the lead again, and leads the eight of diamonds. A, having led the lowest of his suit in the first round, it may be inferred that he has led from a strong suit—headed in this case by the queen—and that he is underplaying with, probably, queen and nine in his hand. Y should observe this, and in the second round should win the eight with the knave.

Refusing to play the winning card in the first and second rounds of a suit—commonly called holding up—is, in fact, a species of underplay. For example:—1. Trumps are led by the player to your left; the third player wins with the ace, and returns the suit through your hand. If you are left with king and one or more small ones, you should play a small one, unless the circumstances of the hand are such that you deem it advantageous to stop the trump lead. The original trump leader, not knowing but that the king is in your partner's hand, will probably finesse, and your partner thus has a chance of making the third best trump, even though unguarded. If your partner has neither second nor third best trump, no harm is done, as you will then probably make but one trick in the suit, however you play. 2. Again, ten tricks are played, and each player is left with three cards of a suit not opened. If the second player puts on the queen (from which it may be inferred that he holds the king also), the third hand should not cover with the ace. For, by winning the trick, he must lead up to king guarded; but, by passing it, he leaves the lead with the second player, and takes the best chance of making two tricks. 3. One more example will suffice: A has the last trump, and ace, ten, and three small cards of a suit not led. The adversary now leads the king, and follows with the queen of that suit. A should pass them both; by so doing he will probably make three tricks in the suit if the cards are equally divided.

---

When you cannot follow suit, you should

11. DISCARD FROM YOUR WEAKEST SUIT.

You weaken a suit by discarding from it, and lessen the number of long cards you might otherwise establish and bring in (i.e., make tricks with if trumps are out, and you obtain the lead after the establishment of your suit). On the other hand, you do but little harm by throwing from a suit in which you are already weak. Your partner should understand that your first or original discard is from your weakest suit, just as he understands that your original lead is from your strongest suit.

But, as in the case of leads, you are sometimes obliged to lead from a weak suit, or to make a forced lead, so sometimes you have to make a forced discard. Forced discards require much more careful consideration than they generally receive.

It is clear that if the opponents declare great strength in trumps (by leading trumps or asking for them, as will be fully explained in Section 13), that your chance of bringing in a suit is practically nil. You should therefore, in such cases, abandon the tactics you would otherwise adopt, and play to guard your weaker suits, by discarding from your best protected suit, which is generally your longest suit. You must, in fact, play a defensive game.

If this system of discarding is comprehended by the two players who are partners, it follows, as a matter of course, that when trumps are not declared against you, your partner will assume you are weak in the suit you first discard; but, when trumps are declared against you, he will give you credit for strength in the suit from which you originally throw away. This is most important, as it affects his subsequent leads. In the first case, he will refrain from leading the suit from which you have discarded; in the second, he will, unless he has a very strong suit of his own, select for his lead the suit in which you have shown strength by your discard.

It is commonly said, "Discard from your strong suit when the adversary leads or calls for trumps." But this is a very imperfect and misleading aphorism. If you have no indications from the play, and are obliged to discard to an adverse trump lead or call, you should discard from your best protected suit. But, if you have, or if the fall of the cards shows that your partner has, sufficient strength in trumps to outlast the adversary, the discard should be from the weak suit. Thus: Y, second player, calls for trumps (see p. 125), and B, third player, also calls. The discards of A and Z should be from their weak suits. For though, on the one hand, great strength in trumps is declared against them, on the other hand great strength is also declared with them. Again: Z deals and turns up nine of clubs. A (the original leader) leads a small club; Y follows suit; B puts on ace; Z plays king. This shows that Z has a sequence of queen, knave, ten, nine of trumps; and therefore that, though A has led a trump, he has anything but the command of the suit. B returns the trump; Z wins; Y has no more trumps. His discard should be from his weakest suit. The following case is less easy:—The adversary (A) leads a tierce major in trumps, eleven trumps come out, and your partner (Y) must have knave of trumps to save the game. You now credit your partner with the command of trumps, though the adversary has led them; and if either you (Y) or your partner (Z) has to discard, the discard should be from the weakest suit (see Hand XII.) Similar remarks apply if a strengthening trump is led by an adversary from weak trumps and good cards in plain suits.

It must be borne in mind that it is only your original discard which is directive. Having once discarded, you cannot undo your work by any number of discards from another suit. Also, having once led a suit, you have declared strength in it; and subsequent discards from that suit do not alter the fact that it was originally your strongest suit.

It is dangerous to unguard an honour, or to blank an ace; and, also, to discard a single card when the game is in an undeveloped stage, as it exposes your weakness almost as soon as the suit is led. But, when you see that there is a probability of strength in trumps on your side, direct your partner to your strong suit by all the means in your power, and unhesitatingly unguard an honour, or throw a single card. Of course, if strength in trumps is against you, these are the very last cards you should think of throwing away.

When your left-hand adversary will have the lead next round, if you discard from a suit in which you hold a tenace, you may possibly induce him to lead that suit up to you. You must be on your guard against this ruse, and not necessarily lead up to the discard of your right-hand opponent.

The same principle applies to trumping as to discarding. The weaker you are in trumps, the better it is for you to make a little one by trumping, as will be further explained in Section 14.

---

12. AFFORD INFORMATION BY YOUR PLAY.

It has several times been assumed in the preceding pages that you should convey information by your play. The question naturally arises, How is it that a player gains any advantage by publishing information to the table? It is often argued, and with much show of reason, that as almost every revelation concerning your hand must be given to the whole table, and that as you have two adversaries and only one partner, you publish information at a disadvantage. No doubt this argument would have considerable force if you were compelled to expose the whole of your hand. But you possess the power, to a great extent, of selecting what facts shall be announced and what concealed.

Experienced players are unanimous in admitting that it is an advantage to inform your partner of strength in your own suits, though some advise concealment of strength in suits in which the adversaries have shown strength. Thus, with ace, king, second hand, the usual play is to put on the king. The third hand does not win the king, and hence the leader is able to infer that the ace of his strong suit is against him. But, if you put on the ace second hand, you prevent the leader from discovering where the king of his suit lies. It is, however, found that two honours in the adversary's suit constitute sufficient strength to make it advantageous in the long run to proclaim your force; while, with less strength, it is not easy to mystify the opponents prejudicially; so that, on the whole, it seldom happens that a balance of gain results from the adoption of deceptive play.

Occasionally, however, a false card may be played with a special object. For instance: ace is turned up to your right, and, when the dealer gets in, he leads a small trump. If you, second hand, have king, queen only, you would be justified in playing the king, in hopes of inducing the trump leader to finesse on the return of the suit. Or, take this case: your left-hand adversary leads originally the five of his strong suit, from king, ten, seven, five. Your partner plays the six; third hand plays ace. You, holding queen, knave, nine, eight, four, three, play the three. Your right-hand opponent now leads trumps; all the trumps come out. The player to your right next returns the deuce of his partner's suit. The original lead being from a four-card suit, king, ten, seven, remain in the leader's hand. If you play knave, the original leader will place queen in your hand, and will hesitate to go on with the suit. But, if you play queen, he will put knave and at least one small one in his partner's hand. Then if, under this impression, he continues the suit, you bring it in.

It is in most cases unquestionably disadvantageous to you that the whole table should be aware of your being very weak in a particular suit, and, consequently, information of weakness should be withheld as long as possible. If you are led up to fourth hand in such a suit, or if your partner opens the suit with a small card, of course the disclosure is inevitable; but until one of these events happens your poverty can generally be kept out of sight. It may happen that you are occasionally forced to lead a weak suit yourself; and in this event the least disadvantage, on the whole, is to tell the truth at once, by first leading the highest of it. Your partner apprised of the state of your hand, by the fall of your smaller card in the subsequent round, will probably deem it prudent to strive by defensive tactics to avert total defeat in that suit, rather than to contend single-handed against the combined strength of the opponents. But, at critical points of the game, it is often right to conceal weakness. Thus, towards the end of a hand, it is necessary that your partner should make a couple of tricks in an unopened suit, of which you hold two or three little cards. You should lead the lowest. If you lead the highest, the adversaries will suspect your weakness at once, and will be sure of it on the second round. Their efforts will then be directed to preventing your partner from making the required tricks in that suit. Your left-hand adversary will not finesse; and if your partner is led through, your right-hand adversary merely covers, or plays the lowest card he has, higher than the one you first led.

When your partner has exhibited weakness in one or more suits, you would frequently be justified in playing a false card. You are driven to rely solely on yourself, and are entitled to adopt every artifice your ingenuity can suggest in order to perplex the other side. The consideration that you may mislead your partner will no longer influence you, as you know him to be powerless for good or for evil.

You inform your partner by following the recognised practice of the game, as by leading from your strong suit originally, by leading the highest of a sequence, by following suit with the lowest of a sequence, and so forth. If you adhere to this you will soon acquire a reputation for playing a straightforward intelligible game; and this character alone will counterbalance the disadvantage which will sometimes attach to the fact that you have enabled the adversaries to read your hand. If your partner knows that you play at random and without method, he will be in a state of constant uncertainty; and you almost preclude him from executing any of the finer strokes of play, the opportunities for which generally arise from being able to infer with confidence the position of particular cards. The extreme case of two skilled players against two unskilled ones amounts almost to this, that towards the close of a hand the former have the same advantage as though they had seen each other's cards, while the latter have not.

It follows that when you are unfortunately tied to an untaught partner, especially if at the same time you are pitted against observant adversaries, you should expose your hand as little as possible, particularly in respect of minor details.

It will become apparent, on consideration, that the question of the advisability of affording information is more or less intimately connected with every card that is played. It is, therefore, of extreme importance to ascertain whether the practice is advantageous or the reverse. The arguments just adduced are doubtless in favour of the practice of affording information by the play; but it must be admitted that by far the strongest authority for it is that experienced players, by their settled opinions, reject the opposite course.

The instructed player frequently selects one card in preference to another with the sole object of affording information. When the principle is carried thus far, the play becomes purely conventional. For example: you naturally win a trick as cheaply as possible; if, fourth hand, you could win with a ten, you would not waste an ace. But suppose you hold knave and ten, which card should then be played? The knave and ten in one hand are of equal value, and therefore to win with the knave would be no unnecessary sacrifice of strength. Nevertheless, you extend to such cases the rule of winning as cheaply as possible, and you play the ten for the mere purpose of conveying information. This is a simple instance of pure convention. Again: the system of returning the higher of two losing cards (see p. 80) when they are both small cards, is purely conventional. To take another case: after two rounds of your four-card suit, you are left with two losing cards, say the six and the seven, and you, having the lead, are about to continue the suit; you should lead the six, not the seven, in accordance with the rule that you lead the lowest card of a suit, except with commanding strength. This being the convention, if you lead the seven, your partner will infer that you cannot hold the six, and will suppose that you led from a three-card suit, in consequence of exceptional circumstances; if he is a good player he will miscount all the hands, probably to your mutual discomfiture.

Whist conventions, it will be observed, are in accordance with, and are suggested by, principle. Indeed, all the established conventions of the game are so chosen as to harmonise with play that would naturally be adopted independently of convention. The aggregation of the recognised rules of play, including the established conventions, constitute what in practice is called the Conversation of the Game of Whist.

It must not be overlooked that unsound players often deceive unintentionally, and all players sometimes with intention. It is, therefore, necessary to be on your guard against drawing inferences too rigidly.

There are some ways of conveying information which have not been explained. For example: if you have the complete command of a suit, you can publish the fact by discarding the highest of it; the presumption being that you would never throw away a winning card with a losing one in your hand. If you discard a second-best card of a suit of which your partner does not know you to hold a long sequence, you ought to have no more of the suit, for with the best also you would discard that, and with a smaller one you would discard that. By winning with the highest, and returning the lowest of a sequence (more especially fourth hand), you show that you have the intermediate cards. Thus, with ace, king, queen, fourth hand, if you desire to continue the suit, and at the same time to show that you still remain with the winning card, you would win with the ace and return the queen. Again, as long as you keep the turn-up card in hand, your partner knows where it is; so, having turned up a nine and holding the ten, trump with the ten in preference. This rule, however, is liable to exceptions. With very small trumps, of equal value, trumping with the higher card may be mistaken for an exhibition of four or five trumps; also, if you are weak in trumps, and the adversaries have shown strength in them, it is not advisable to keep the turn-up card; for, if the adversaries know you have it in your hand, they will draw it, whereas, if you play it, they may be uncertain as to your holding another. If you open a suit of ace, king only, it must be a forced lead. You then adopt the rule of leading the highest of a numerically weak suit, and first lead the ace. This shows your partner (unless you have already been forced, when you lead the ace before king for other reasons), that you have no more of the suit. Also, by leading the lowest of a head sequence of winning trumps (subject, if an American Leader, to a selection of card in order to show number), you convey information. Thus, you lead a small trump, partner plays queen, won with king. You remain with ace, knave, ten. On obtaining the lead, you continue with the ten, and, when it wins, you have shown two by honours (unless ace is held up, which is unlikely). If you continue with ace, as in plain suits, your partner can tell nothing about the knave and ten. You may pursue the same method in plain suits when your partner has no more trumps, and with any head sequence when you want him to win the trick, or are sure he cannot, and also when the fourth hand has already renounced in the suit led.

A most valuable mode of conveying very precise information of strength is within the reach of players who think fit to adopt American Leads (see Appendix A). As the propriety of these leads is questioned by some players, it may be stated that they form a beautiful system which is in full harmony with the established principles of whist play.

With regard to the American system when leading a high card of your strong suit after a high card, no one disputes the propriety of leading ace, then queen, from ace, queen, knave, and one small card; and of leading ace, then knave, from ace, queen, knave, and more than one small card. In the case of the four-card suit, you select the higher card to tell your partner not to play the king, as you have not sufficient numerical power to defend the suit single-handed. In the case of a suit of more than four cards, you select the lower card that your partner may not retain the command of your suit, and may play the king, should he happen to have held king and two small ones originally. For a similar reason, it is obvious that with queen, knave, ten, and one small card, you should follow queen with knave; with queen, knave, ten, and more than one small card, you should follow queen with ten.

Now, here is a germ of a principle of play. Holding two high indifferent cards, and only four of your suit, your second lead is the higher card; holding more than four, your second lead is the lower card.

For the sake of uniformity, you should pursue the same plan in all cases where, after your first lead, you remain with two high indifferent cards. Thus, your original lead is a ten, from king, knave, ten, and one or more small cards. The queen is played to your ten. You have the lead again, and it is immaterial, so far as establishing the suit is concerned, whether you proceed with the king or with the knave. But, if your practice is uniform, and in accordance with the practice which obtains in the case of ace, queen, knave, and of queen, knave, ten, you can inform your partner whether you led from a suit of four cards or of more than four cards. If you continue with the king, the higher of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and one small card; if you continue with the knave, the lower of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and more than one small card.

With regard to the American system, when opening your strong suit with a low card, those who have already adopted the penultimate lead from suits of five cards, will have no difficulty in again discovering the germ of a principle of play. The fourth-best card of your suit is led from suits of four cards, and from suits of five cards.

You have only to apply the same rule to suits of more than five cards, and to lead your fourth-best card. You then pursue a uniform practice, and at the same time convey valuable information. (See Appendix A).

As an illustration, take this suit—queen, ten, nine, eight. You lead the eight. Now suppose your suit to be queen, ten, nine, eight, three. You still lead the eight. Now add one more card. Your suit is queen, ten, nine, eight, three, two. You should still lead the eight. No doubt, a careful player would lead the eight, as a card of protection, even if American leads had never been thought of. With lower cards, such as queen, nine, eight, seven, three, two, it is possible a careful player might lead the seven; and with still lower cards, where is he to stop? The knot is cut by the very simple and uniform rule of leading the fourth-best, without reference to the possibility of its being a card of protection.

With regard to the lead of a high card followed by a low card, when the American system is followed, the low card selected should be the original fourth-best. (See Appendix A).

The more the American system is examined, the more thorough and perfect it will be found. Care, however, must be taken, with leads late in a hand, not to confuse a fourth-best lead with a forced lead of the highest card of a weak suit. The American rule only applies, in its integrity to the original lead,—or after one or more tricks have been played, to the original lead of the player's own choice, (See Appendix A). Also, it may be, that the leader, with very strong cards in all plain suits, starts by leading a strengthening trump. The uncertainty of the real character of the lead, in this case, is no doubt unfavourable; but, the advantage of frequently being able to give information of great numerical strength far outweighs this occasional danger.

Information as to the number of trumps you hold can be similarly communicated when you have more than four trumps, by trumping with the fourth-best and then leading the fourth-best of those remaining. This rule, however, is subject to rather a large exception. When your fourth-best trump is a medium card, such as an eight, trumping with the eight may imperil a trick later on. For instance: with such cards as king, knave, nine, eight, three, a careful player would rightly trump with the three and lead the eight. For the time, you do not inform your partner as to number, because the eight is too valuable a card to get rid of, and the information might be purchased too dearly. Also, when about to lead high trumps after a force, there is no occasion to run any risk by trumping with any but the lowest, as the high cards led will of themselves indicate how many trumps you now hold (not how many you held originally). If you take a force with any trump but the lowest, and do not lead a trump, when your lowest is afterwards played it only signifies that you had at least five trumps originally, and your play does not constitute a call for trumps. (See p. 125.)

---

The Management of Trumps is, perhaps, the most difficult of the problems presented to the Whist-player. Before discussing the special uses of trumps, it may be observed that in some few hands trumps are led like plain suits, because they are your strongest suit, and you prefer leading them to opening a weak suit. The principles already discussed, which guide us to the most favourable chances for making tricks in a suit, apply to trumps equally with other suits. The privilege, however, enjoyed by the trump suit of winning every other, causes some modifications of detail (noticed at pp. 64-71, and at pp. 85-88); for, since the winning trumps must make tricks, you play a more backward game in the trump suit. Thus, with ace, king, and small trumps, you lead a small one, by which you obtain an increased chance of making tricks in the suit, and you keep the command of it, and must have the lead after the third round, the advantage of which will be presently explained. Even if your partner is so weak in trumps that the opponent wins the first trick very cheaply, but little (if any) harm accrues; for the opponent then has to open a suit up to you or your partner.

In the great majority of hands, trumps are applied to their special uses, viz.: 1. To disarm the opponents, and to prevent their trumping your winning-cards; and 2. To trump the winning cards of the adversaries. In order to comprehend when trumps may be most profitably applied to the first, and when to the second, of these uses, we must first clearly perceive the objects aimed at throughout the hand, viz.: to establish a suit, to exhaust the adversaries' trumps, and to retain the long trump, or a certain winning card with which to get the lead again, for the purpose of bringing in the suit; also to endeavour to obstruct similar designs of the opponents. It follows that you should

---

It cannot be too strongly impressed that the primary use of strength in trumps is to draw the adversaries' trumps for the bringing in of your own or your partner's long suit. With great strength in trumps (five or more), you may proceed at once to disarm the opponents, and lead trumps without waiting to establish a suit. For, with five trumps or more, the chance of your succeeding in drawing the other trumps, and of being left with the long trumps is so considerable, that you may then almost always lead trumps, whatever your other cards. The exceptional hands are principally those which contain five trumps without an honour, and five small cards of a plain suit; or five trumps without an honour, and four middling cards of one plain suit together with four bad cards of another plain suit. But if the adversaries are at the score of three, you should lead a trump with these hands, as your partner must have two honours, or very good cards out of trumps, for you to save the game.

If you are at the score of three, the adversaries being love, one, or two, you should not lead a trump merely because you have five trumps with two honours, if they are unaccompanied by a very strong suit, or by good cards in each suit. For here, if your partner has an honour, you probably win the game in any case; and if he has no honour you open the trump suit to a disadvantage. Some good players, however, do not allow this to be an exceptional case. The turn-up card may sometimes cause you to refrain from leading trumps from five. Thus: you have king, ten, nine, six, and four of spades (trumps); ace, queen, and three small diamonds; and three small hearts. You are four, and the ace of spades is turned up. In the opinion of most players, the ace of diamonds is the best original lead; but, if an ace were not turned up, you should lead a trump.

It is often said, even by pretty good players, "Strength in trumps is no reason for leading them, unless you have a good suit as well." If both you and your partner are devoid of good cards you cannot make tricks; but should your partner hold one good suit out of the three, you will very likely bring it in for him by leading from strength in trumps. For, even if you have a poor hand out of trumps, you will discover in the course of play (i.e., by the suits led or discarded by the other players), what your partner's suit is, and will be able to lead it to him each time you get the lead with your long trumps. Besides, if your hand is weak out of trumps, you are placed in the disadvantageous position of leading from a weak suit unless you lead trumps.

You should not be deterred from leading trumps because an honour is turned up to your right, nor necessarily lead them because the same happens to your left; either is proper if the circumstances of the hand require it, but neither otherwise. To illustrate this proposition, take this hand: ace, queen, and three small spades (trumps), three small hearts, three small clubs, and two small diamonds. The king of spades is turned up fourth hand. The best lead is disputed; but the author has no hesitation in advising the lead of a small trump, notwithstanding that there is a certain finesse over the king. A little consideration will render this apparent. By leading the trump suit originally, you obtain the advantages just enumerated, and make the dealer open a suit up to your partner. Your partner, as soon as he gets the lead, will return the trump, and you thus obtain the command of trumps whether the king was forced out in the first round or not.

Bearing in mind the severe consequences of leaving the adversary with the long trump, you must be cautious in leading trumps from less than five; four trumps and a moderate hand not justifying an original trump lead. You should, instead, lead your strong plain suit, and if you establish it, and the adversaries do not meantime show any great strength, as by leading or calling for trumps (pp. 125-127), you may then, with four trumps, mostly venture a trump lead. With strength in trumps you may generally finesse more freely in the second and third rounds of trumps than you would in plain suits. In plain suits an unsuccessful finesse may result in the best card being afterwards trumped, which cannot happen in trumps. Moreover, by finessing, you keep the winning trump, and so obtain the lead after the third round. This is especially important when you have a suit established and but four trumps. Here you should, generally, not merely finesse in the second round, but hold up the winning trump, and sometimes at this juncture refuse to part with it even if the trump lead comes from the adversary.

An example will render this more clear. The leader (A) has ace, and three small trumps, a strong suit, headed by ace, king, queen, and a probable trick, say king and another, in a third suit. A should, in the writer's judgment, lead a trump. If B (A's partner) wins the first trick in trumps, and returns a strengthening trump, A, as a rule, should not part with his ace. When A or B obtain the lead again they play a third round of trumps, which, being won by the ace, enables A, by leading his tierce major, to get a force (i.e., to compel one of his adversaries to trump in order to win the trick), in which case nothing short of five trumps in one hand against him can prevent A's bringing in his suit. You must be prepared for similar tactics on the part of the adversaries, and not conclude that they have not the best trump because they suffer you to win the first or second round.

With a well protected hand containing four trumps, two being honours, a trump may be led originally. For here the chance of gaining by the trump lead may be taken as greater than the chance of losing. Thus with queen, knave, and two small trumps, a four suit with an honour, say for example, knave, ten, nine, and a small one, king guarded in the third suit, and queen guarded in the fourth, a small trump if it finds partner with an honour is by no means unlikely to win the game. If partner turns out very weak in trumps the leader must alter his plan, and, instead of continuing the trump lead, play to make three, five or seven tricks according to the fall of the cards in plain suits.

Trump leads, without strength in trumps, can only be right in consequence of some special circumstance in the state of the game, or of the score. For instance, great commanding strength in all the plain suits may call for a trump lead; or it may be necessitated to stop a cross-ruff (i.e., the alternate trumping by partners of different suits, each leading the suit in which the other renounces), in which case it is generally advisable to take out two rounds if possible; so with the winning trump you play it out, whatever your others are. Again, if you have a wretched hand and you are love to three or four, you assume that the game is lost, unless your partner is very strong; and if he is very strong, the trump is the best lead for him. This doctrine is frequently carried to excess, as, by concealing your weakness, you often stand a better chance of saving a point, if not the game, than by at once exposing it. If, therefore, you have one four suit, headed by an honour, you would generally do better to choose that.

The trump lead is so much more important than any other that you should almost always return your partner's lead of trumps immediately, except he has led from weakness, when you are not bound to return it unless it suits your hand.

If you find one of the adversaries without a trump, you should mostly proceed to establish your long suit, and abstain from drawing two trumps for one; to say nothing of the probability that the adversary who has not renounced is unusually strong in trumps. Besides, when he has the lead, he will very likely lead trumps in order to draw two for one; and it is more advantageous to you that the lead should come from him. On the other hand, if your partner has no trump, it is often right to endeavour to weaken the adversaries by continuing even their trump lead.

It is a common artifice, if you wish a trump to be led, to drop a high card to the adversary's lead, to induce him to believe that you will trump it next round, whereupon the leader will very likely change the suit, and perhaps lead trumps. Thus, if he leads king (from ace, king, and others), and you hold queen and one other, it is evident that you cannot make the queen. If you throw the queen to his king, he may lead a trump to prevent your trumping his ace; but if he goes on with the suit, and you drop your small card, it may fairly be inferred that you have been endeavouring to get him to lead a trump. Your partner should now take the hint, and, if he gets the lead, lead trumps; for if you want them led, it is of little consequence from whom the lead comes. By a conventional extension of this system to lower cards it is understood that, whenever you throw away an unnecessarily high card, it is a sign (after the smaller card drops) that you want trumps led. This is called asking for trumps or calling for trumps.

When you ask for trumps, you command your partner to abandon his own game, and to lead a trump; and you promise him, in return, if he has reasonably good cards, either to win the game or to make a considerable score. It has been laid down, that the minimum strength in trumps which justifies you in issuing such an order to your partner is four trumps, two being honours, or five trumps, one being an honour, accompanied by such cards in your own or your partner's suits that you are reasonably secure of not having a suit brought in against you. This rule, however, only applies to an original ask. If you have had the lead, and have not led a trump, or if you have had an opportunity of asking and have not asked, and you then ask for trumps at a later period of the hand, the ask is not a command, like an original one, nor does it necessarily imply the possession of the minimum strength above stated. It merely means that, from the fall of the cards, you consider a trump lead would be very advantageous. For example: you hold ace and a small spade; king, ten, and two small hearts (trumps); queen and two small clubs; and knave, ten and two other diamonds. You lead a small diamond; your partner plays the queen; the fourth hand plays the ace. A small club is now led through you. You should ask for trumps.

When your partner asks for trumps, and you have four or more at the time you obtain the lead, lead the smallest, unless you have the ace, or three honours, or queen, knave, ten; if you have only two or three trumps when you obtain the lead, lead from the highest downwards, whatever they are.

Before answering the ask, be sure that the higher card, previously dropped, is unnecessarily high. For instance a higher card is often played before a lower, to show that you command the suit, or that you hold the intermediate cards, or to get out of your partner's way. It is very important to distinguish between covering second hand and discarding an unnecessarily high card. For example: with knave, ten, and one other (say the three), it is usual to play the ten second hand on a small card. When your three comes down in the next round, it is not an ask for trumps, unless your partner can infer that you do not hold the knave. Moderate players, who know of the ask, never consider this; so with them the choice of the least evil is generally not to cover, for you otherwise run the terrible risk of having a strengthening trump led to you with a weak hand. To ask for trumps, second hand, with knave, ten, and one other, you must play the knave.

When your partner leads a trump, or asks for trumps, if you have numerical strength in trumps, you should ask at the first opportunity. This is called the echo of the call, though it is made use of also in response to a lead.

The advantages of the echo are manifold. Your partner being strong in trumps may hesitate to take a force, but your echo enables him to do so without fear, and to persevere with the trump lead. Or, your partner may be in doubt after the second round of trumps as to the policy of playing a third. But if he can count two more trumps in your hand he will be directed. Thus: eight are out, your partner has three more; you have echoed. He will know that the other two are in your hand, and will not draw two for none, as without the echo, he might do.

The negative advantage of the echo should not be overlooked. Thus: to take the same case of eight trumps being out, and the leader with three more trumps. You (his partner) have had the chance of sounding an echo, but have not done so. The leader knows that you have not both the remaining trumps, and he will regulate his game accordingly.

To your partner's trump lead you echo in the trump suit; the same if partner calls, and you are forced. Thus: you have eight, seven, five, two of trumps; your left-hand adversary leads king, ace of a suit of which you only hold one. Your partner calls. You echo, by trumping with the five, and you then lead the eight. On the second round of trumps, when your deuce falls, the echo is completed. Your partner knows that you have one more trump, either the six or the seven. If you had not echoed, he might not be able to tell for certain whether you hold another trump or not. (See Hands XXXIV., XXXV.)

If you have four trumps and are forced, and your partner then leads or asks for trumps, you should echo, notwithstanding that you no longer have numerical strength. This case can best be illustrated by an example. (See Hand XXXVI.)

---

The use of strength in trumps being to disarm the opponents, it follows that you should as much as possible husband your strength for that purpose. Therefore when second player,

---

By a doubtful card is meant a card of a suit of which your partner may have the best.

Whether you should trump or refuse to trump a doubtful card depends almost entirely on your strength in trumps. It has already been mentioned that it is an advantage to trump when you are weak, for you thus make a little trump, which is not available for the other uses of trumps, and which, if not used for trumping, will presently be drawn by the strong hand. It is conversely a disadvantage to trump a doubtful card when you are strong in trumps, for by trumping you weaken your numerical power, and diminish the probability of your bringing in a suit. If, instead of trumping, you throw away a losing card, you inform your partner that you have strength in trumps, and also, by your discard, what your strong suit is; and if your partner has any strength in the suit led, you leave him in a favourable position.

If you refuse to overtrump, or to trump a certain winning card, your partner should conclude either that you have no trump, or more probably four trumps and a powerful hand besides. If he concludes that you are reserving your trumps to bring in a suit, he should assist you by leading trumps as soon as he can. A refusal to be thus forced is seldom requisite if you have more than four trumps; with six you are mostly strong enough to trump and to lead trumps; with five you may do the same, if your suit is established; but if not, it is generally best to take the force, and to lead your suit.

The situations in which it is most necessary to refuse to overtrump your right-hand adversary, or to refuse to trump a winning card, occur when you have four trumps and a very strong suit, or a suit established early in a hand. For then, by trumping, you prejudice your chance of bringing in the suit in order to secure one trick. By refusing to part with a trump in these cases, you obtain the advantages just enumerated, at the time when they are most likely to become of service; and, where you refuse to overtrump, your adversary is left with one trump less, by which your hand is strengthened.

Many players run into the extreme of always refusing to be forced by a winning card when they are strong in trumps. The situations, however, just indicated, are almost the only ones in which it answers to hold up; and these even are liable to several exceptions. For instance:—1. You should not persist in refusing to be forced if you find that the adversary has the entire command of his suit. 2. You should not refuse if your partner evidently intends to force you; and, 3. You should not refuse to overtrump if you have reason to believe that your left-hand adversary is strong in trumps.

With an untaught partner it is useless to refuse to trump; he will not understand it, but will continue to force you. With such, the best course is rather to make tricks when you can than to play for a great game.

---

From what has just been said, it is evidently an advantage to

---

For you thereby take the best chance of preventing his making use of his trumps for bringing in a suit. If he refuses to take a force, keep on giving it to him.

For instance, if he passes your king (led from king, queen, &c.), and the king wins, continue the suit, and so on. Some players can never be brought to understand this; they do not like to see their winning cards trumped, and therefore frequently change their suit or even lead trumps when an adversary refuses to be forced.

It now hardly requires to be stated that it is bad play intentionally to force a weak adversary, and still worse to lead a suit to which both adversaries renounce, as the weak will trump and the strong get rid of a losing card.

---

If you have numerical strength in trumps, you are justified in forcing your partner, relying on your own strength to disarm the opponents. But

---

For you thus weaken him, and leave it in the power of the antagonists to draw all the trumps, and bring in their suit. If, then, a good partner refrains from forcing you, you may be sure he is weak; on the other hand, if he evidently intends to force you (as by leading a losing card of a suit he knows you must trump), you may assume that he is strong in trumps, and you should take the force willingly, even though you do not want to be forced, depending on his strength to exhaust the adversaries' trumps.

You may, however, though weak, force your partner under these circumstances. 1. When he has already shown a desire to be forced, or weakness in trumps, as by trumping a doubtful card, or by refraining from forcing you. 2. When you have a cross-ruff, which secures several tricks at once, and is therefore often more advantageous than trying to establish a suit. 3. Sometimes when you are playing a close game, as for the odd trick, and often when one trick saves or wins the game or a point. And 4. Sometimes when great strength in trumps has been declared against you.

If your partner leads a thirteenth card, or a card of a suit in which he knows that both you and the fourth player renounce, your play must depend on your partner's strength in trumps. If he is strong, he wants you to put on your best trump, either to make the trumps separately, or to force out one or two high ones, to leave himself with the command. If he is weak in trumps, he wants you to pass the card, that the fourth player may obtain the lead, and lead up to your hand. No general rule can be given as to the course to be pursued with regard to thirteenth cards. You must judge of the leader's intention by the score and the previous fall of the cards.

---

These two all-important principles have already been mentioned as causing differences in the play. The commonest form in which the former is presented to us is this: at the score of Love-all five tricks save the game against two by honours. It is often right, therefore, when two by honours have been declared against you, to go for the fifth trick by leading off a winning card, or by putting one on second or third hand.

To explain further what is meant by playing to the score, put yourself in this situation. Four trumps remain in, the adversaries have two winning trumps, it being uncertain whether they are in one hand or divided; you have the two losing trumps, two forcing cards, and the lead; you can only play correctly by referring to the score. Thus, if the adversary is at four, and you have won five, or even six tricks, your game would be to secure two tricks by forcing; for if you play a trump and the two against you are in the same hand, you lose the game. But suppose you are at the point of two, and the adversaries are not at four, and you have won six tricks, your game would be to risk the trump; for if you bring down the other trumps you win the game; but by playing to force you make certain of scoring only four. By applying this mode of reasoning you will often be directed as to a finesse late in a hand. (Further illustrations of playing to the score occur in the hands.)

For simple examples of drawing inferences at the time of the fall of the cards take the following:—1. You lead a small card from ace, knave, &c.; your partner wins with the queen; you should immediately (i.e., before another card is led) infer that the king cannot be with your right-hand adversary. Hence, on the return of the suit, you would not finesse the knave. 2. You are second player, and a suit is led in which you have king, ten, and one small one. You play the small one. The third hand plays the queen, which is won with the ace. You should at once infer that the third hand cannot have the knave, and that you may safely finesse the ten next round.

You will greatly assist your memory by systematically recording inferences in the above manner. In addition to this you should apply your knowledge of the principles to noting important points, not attempting too much at first. Begin by counting the trumps as they fall, and notice, at all events, the honours, and remember the turn-up card. By degrees you will find yourself able to recollect the ten and nine, and then the smaller trumps. Next attend to the suit led originally by each player, and watch in the second round whether the lead was from strength or weakness. Try also to remember the fall of the cards in your own strong suit, that you may know when it is established. Beyond this, experience will enable you to judge what to retain and what to reject in each hand; so that, with practice, you will acquire what may be termed whist memory which will enable you, without any great effort, to recollect the principal features of every hand.

The fall of the cards may, one time or another, modify nearly every rule of play. A player who simply follows rule, and fails to grasp the situations in which rule should be departed from, is a mere machine without intelligence. General principles only apply to the general case; to apply them to particular cases, observation, inference, and judgment are essential. Thus, in the Analysis of Leads, it appears that the card which should be led in trumps often differs from the card which should be led in plain suits. The reason is given at p. 119. But it will be clear to any one who reads between the lines, that plain suits should be led like trumps, if all the remaining trumps are in the leader's or his partner's hands; or, if all the trumps are out, and the leader or his partner has certain cards of re-entry in other suits.

As another example, take the case of returned leads. A leads a small card; the second hand plays a small card; B (third hand) puts on the eight; the fourth hand wins with the queen. When B gets the lead he returns the knave. It is evident that B must have the ten and the nine. Here two principles appear to conflict. One rule is, with four originally return the smallest; the other rule is convey information to your partner. When a player has thus to choose between two rules, he must use his intelligence, in order to decide under which rule his greater advantage lies. In the example given, the return of the knave cannot deceive partner as to the number of cards held in the suit; if he takes the trouble to think, he will at once perceive that the rule as to returned leads has been departed from, in order to convey information.

---

The three following Examples further illustrate cases where playing to the board is involved.

CASE I.

Score: AB, three; YZ, four. Spades trumps.

AB have six tricks and have played two by honours. It is known from the fall of the cards that A has no trump; also that Z has the long diamond. A to lead.

---

The Play and Remarks.—A leads a small club. Y puts on the ace second hand. In order to save (and win) the game, Y and his partner must win every trick (see statement of score and of fall of the cards). Y sees that to do this Z must have two of the three remaining trumps. This being so, Z can have but one club, and Y therefore puts on the ace of clubs second hand.

For other illustrations see Hands VIII and XV.

CASE II.

Score: AB want two tricks to save the game. Hearts trumps. A to lead.

A knows Y to have the best heart; also B to have the best diamond and weak spades.

---

The Play and Remarks.—A leads the queen of spades, and then the losing trump. A takes the only chance of winning two tricks. To accomplish this Y must hold one spade and one diamond, as will appear by placing the unknown cards in any other way. A therefore plays on the assumption that Y holds a spade and a diamond in addition to the trump which is declared in his hand.

---

For another illustration of leading a losing trump to place the lead see Hand XXXV.

CASE III.

It is the duty of a player to make the game as easy to his partner as he can. The play often depends on the sort of partner. For example:—you lead the ten from king, queen, knave, ten, only, or from king, knave, ten, &c. Suppose the lead to be from the former combination, and that your ten forces the ace from the fourth hand. You obtain the lead again. The proper lead now is the queen. (See Analysis of Leads, p. 67). But, with an indifferent partner, the better lead is the king, as he may not have drawn the correct inference from the first lead, and knowing the queen is not the best, he may trump it.

However good your partner may be, you should not put him into unnecessary difficulties. For example:—

Spades trumps. Y can count two hearts, and queen, ten of spades in A's hand, and a small spade in Z's hand. A to lead.

The Play and Remarks.—A leads the seven of hearts. Y should put on the king, though certain of being able to win with the nine. For, if Y wins with the nine, he compels Z to play a coup, viz., to trump the best heart, in order to get the lead through the queen, ten of spades; but, if Y wins with the king and leads the losing heart, it requires no ingenuity on Z's part to trump it.

---

There is no Whist principle which should not be occasionally violated, owing to the knowledge of the hands derived from inference during the play. Some of the more frequent of the cases, where a general rule can be given for departing from rule, may advantageously close this Section.

LEADING FROM WEAKEST SUIT.

It is advisable in most cases where the game is desperate, and where it is clear that your partner must be strong in your weak suit to save the game, to lead your weakest suit, notwithstanding Principle 1 (p. 56). Your partner should finesse deeply in the suit you lead him, and should not return it, but, actuated by motives similar to yours, should lead his weakest suit, in which you should finesse deeply, and continue your weak suit, and so on.

For example: AB (partners) lead trumps. They win the first three tricks, and show four by honours, and three more trumps remain in A's hand. Consequently, if AB win another trick, they win the game. Y or Z now has the lead for the first time. His lead should be from his weakest suit, on this principle: if his partner has not the command of it, or a successful finesse in it, the game is lost. Say Y leads, and Z wins the trick. Z should not return Y's lead, but should similarly lead his weakest suit.

---

For an illustration of this coup, see Hand XXVII.

TREATING LONG SUITS LIKE SHORT ONES, AND VICE VERSÂ.

It often happens towards the end of a hand, that an unplayed suit, of which the leader holds (say) four cards, can only go round twice, e.g., there may be two trumps left in in one of the opponents' hands. In such a case, if your suit is headed by queen or knave, you should treat it as a suit of two cards only, and lead your highest, as this gives the best chance of making two tricks in the suit.

---

In the reverse case, where a suit can only go round once, it is obvious that a small card should be led, so as not to tempt partner to finesse. Thus, holding queen and one small card of an unplayed suit, which you are about to lead, all the opponents' cards but one being winning cards, the proper lead is the small card.

---

For an illustration see Hand XXII.

---

There is another case, known as Deschapelles' coup, where the proper card to lead is not determined by the leader's numerical power in the suit. It is this: all the adversaries' and partner's trumps are exhausted, and the leader's partner remains with an established suit. If the leader (not having any of his partner's suit left) is obliged to open a fresh suit headed by king, queen, or knave, he should lead the highest card, irrespective of the number of cards he holds in the suit, that being the best chance of subsequently procuring the lead for his partner in case his only card of entry in that suit should be an honour, not the ace.

---

For an illustration of this coup, see Hand XXVIII.

---

Deschapelles' coup often succeeds in practice, but it may generally be defeated by an attentive player. When the above-described position of the cards occurs, the adversary, if he has the ace of the fresh suit led, should not put it on first round. The suit will, in all probability, be continued with a low card, when the third player will most likely be compelled to play his highest, which will be taken by the ace; and, having lost the card of re-entry, he never brings in his suit, unless he gets the lead in some other way.

REFUSING TO WIN THE SECOND ROUND OF A SUIT.

This is a case of by no means infrequent occurrence. For example: one of the adversaries has a long suit declared in his favour, which is led a second time. Only one trump remains in, which is in the hand of the second or fourth player. As a rule, the second round of the suit should not be trumped. The third round will probably exhaust the adverse hand, which is numerically weak in the suit. If it so happens that the player who is numerically strong in it has no card of re-entry in any other suit, he will then never bring in his long suit, as his partner, whose hand is exhausted, cannot lead it again, should he get the lead after the third round. If there is a card of re-entry in the hand of the player who has numerical strength, he must bring in the suit, whether the second round is trumped or not.

See Hand XXIX for an illustration of this position.

A similar rule applies, but less frequently, when one adversary has the long trumps, and his partner a long suit nearly established.

For an illustration of this position, see Hand XXX.

DECLINING TO DRAW THE LOSING TRUMP.

When all the trumps are out but two, and the leader remains with the best trump, the losing trump being in the hand of his adversary, the natural and obvious play is to draw the last trump.

But there is a class of cases in which the trump should not be drawn as a matter of course, viz., if one adversary has a long suit established, and his partner has a card of that suit to lead.

The case usually happens in this way: YZ (partners) lead a suit, and after two rounds establish it. They then lead trumps from a suit of four trumps (see p. 123). Eleven trumps come out, and A (YZ's adversary) has the lead and the best trump, one of the opponents having the losing trump. The question then arises, Should A draw the trump?

A should draw the trump if he has also an established suit; or, if B (A's partner) has an established suit, and A can put the lead into B's hand. For, in these two cases, A or B cannot do better than bring in their suit. Again, A should draw the trump, if the adversary who has a suit established (say Z) has also the losing trump, for then, if either Y or Z has a card of re-entry in either of the other two suits, Z cannot be prevented from bringing in his established suit. Lastly, A should draw the trump if Y (Z's partner) has the losing trump, and Z has, declared in his hand, two cards of re-entry. The last case may be dismissed as of but little practical use, as, at the time when A has to decide whether he will draw the trump, he will seldom know enough about the remaining cards to be positive that Z has two cards of re-entry.

In the above cases, A, by not drawing the trump, makes his adversaries a present of a trick.

On the other hand, A should not draw the trump if one opponent (Z) has an established suit, which Y (Z's partner) can lead, the losing trump being in Y's hand. And, it is especially incumbent on A not to draw the trump, if either he or his partner has a suit which will probably be established by leading it, and if A can infer from the fall of the cards that Y has only one card of his partner's established suit in his hand, subject, of course, to the qualifications already noted.

The point aimed at in not drawing the trump, is, first to get the commanding card of A's or B's long suit out of the adverse hand. Y or Z thus obtains the lead, and continues the established suit, which A trumps with the winning trump. If, now, Z has no card of re-entry in the fourth—or unopened—suit, he never brings in his established suit, Y not having another card of it to lead.

The case is difficult to carry when stated thus generally; for an illustration, see Hand XXXI.

REFUSING TO OVERTRUMP.

Cases often happen where it is not advisable to overtrump. Most of these depend on the fall of the cards and on inferences from the play (see Hands XXIII, XXIV), and cannot be generalised. But there is one case in which it is never right to overtrump, viz., when three cards remain in each hand, and one player holds the second and third best trumps, with one of which he trumps the card led. If the player to his left has the best and fourth best trumps, he can never gain anything by overtrumping, and may lose a trick, as the following example shows:—

The position of the trumps (spades) is known. A leads a heart, B trumps it. If Z overtrumps he loses the other two tricks, but if he throws the ace of diamonds he wins the other two tricks.

This rule for not overtrumping cannot be laid down absolutely when there are more than three cards in hand; but when only four trumps remain in, second and third best against best and fourth, it is so frequently advisable not to overtrump, that the player should consider well the position of the remaining cards before overtrumping.

---

For an illustration of this case, see Hand XXV.

---

Since it is so often right not to overtrump under these circumstances, it follows that when the case arises the player who holds second and third best should, as a rule, attempt to defeat the coup by playing a false card—i.e., he should trump with the higher card in hopes of deceiving his left hand opponent as to the position of the third best trump.

THROWING HIGH CARDS TO PLACE THE LEAD.

This coup presents itself in a variety of forms; the following are selected as likely to be of use.

Whenever you are left at the end of a hand with the tenace in trumps (either best and third best, or second best guarded) over the player to your right, and two other cards, both being cards of the suit led by him, you, second hand, should always throw the highest card of his lead to that trick. You can never lose by so doing, and may win. For example: you have nine and five of the suit led. Throw the nine. For, in the second round of the suit, it may so happen that you get the lead with the nine. If the cards lie thus, for instance:—

Y has the tenace in hearts (trumps) over A. A leads ace of clubs. If Y does not throw the nine, and Z plays carelessly and fails to win Y's nine in the next round, YZ lose a trick. Of course, Z ought to win the second round, but it is Y's duty to render it impossible for Z not to do so (see Remarks on making it easy to Partner, p. 139).

The typical example of this coup is the case where the leader plays the ace, and the second player has king guarded, as in the following example:—

Spades trumps. There are only four spades in, and Y knows that A has the king, ten. B's and Z's cards are immaterial.

A leads the ace of diamonds. If Y plays the two of diamonds he can only make two tricks; but, if he throws the king to the ace, he still makes two tricks, and, if his partner has the queen of diamonds, he makes three tricks.

---

This coup may be similarly played in plain suits. For an illustration see Hand XXXII.

The following fine coup (which occurred in actual play) exemplifies a similar, but more complicated, case:—

Score: YZ require every trick. Hearts trumps. It is known that the trumps lie between B and Z.

A leads a club; Y and B play small clubs. Z, knowing that B holds the second best trump guarded, takes the only chance of saving the game, by winning the first trick in clubs with the ace, and returning the queen. Y, seeing his partner's anxiety to get rid of the lead, rightly conjectures him to hold the major tenace in trumps. He, therefore, wins his partner's queen of clubs with the king, and saves the game.

It being known that the remaining trumps lie between B and Z, Y would be right to win the second round of clubs under all circumstances of the score.

For another illustration of this coup, see Hand XXXIII.

On a similar principle, the leader not infrequently leads a losing plain card, or a losing trump, at the end of a hand, in order to place the lead. For illustrations, see Case II, p. 138, and Hands XVI, XVII, and XXXV.

THE GRAND COUP.

The Grand Coup consists in throwing away a superfluous trump. At the first glance it appears impossible to have a superabundance of trumps; but cases sometimes happen where a player has a trump too many. To get rid of this trump—as by undertrumping a trick already trumped by your partner, or by trumping a trick which he has won, or which you know he may win—is to play the grand coup.

The opportunity for playing the grand coup generally happens in this way. Two rounds of trumps come out, leaving five trumps in, two in the hand of (say) B, and three in the hand of Z (the player to his left). If B has the best and third best trumps, or the second best guarded, and trumps are not led again, nor used for trumping, it is clear that at the eleventh trick Z must obtain the lead, and must lead up to the tenace in trumps. If, before the eleventh trick, Z trumps a trick of his partner's (or, in the case of only seven trumps coming out in two rounds, undertrumps a trick already trumped by his partner), and the lead at the eleventh trick can thus be kept in—or put into—Z's partner's hand, the grand coup comes off, as in the following example:—

Clubs trumps. Z knows that B has ten and another trump. A leads the ten of diamonds; Y trumps with the six of clubs; Z undertrumps with the five. If he retains his three trumps, and B refuses to trump the queen of spades next led by Y, Z loses a trick in clubs.

The opportunity for playing the grand coup is often missed. A player should always be on the look-out for it when he has five trumps, especially if a trump is led to his right. It should be added also, that if the player who attempts it retains a high card in his hand, he may be just as badly off as though he remained with three trumps. Thus, holding three trumps against two, and ace and another card of another suit, it is not sufficient that he disposes of one of his trumps; he should also get rid of his ace (see Remarks on Throwing High Cards to place the Lead, pp. 147-151). The following example will render this more clear:—

Hearts trumps. B has already got rid of his superfluous trump. A leads the eight of clubs. B should throw the ace of diamonds to it. For, if B has the lead after the next trick, he might just as well have kept his third trump. If A has the king of diamonds, B wins a trick by discarding the ace; and, if A has not the king, B loses nothing by throwing the ace.

An exception to this rule is when A has winning cards to go on with. Thus, if A had another club, B need not discard the ace of diamonds. This is too obvious to require working out.

---

The following is another aspect under which the grand coup may present itself:—

Hearts trumps. It is known that B has king, queen, knave of trumps, and a losing spade or club—but uncertain which.

A leads the knave of diamonds. B trumps it.

Z should throw away a small trump, undertrumping B in order to keep two winning queens. If he discards a queen, he must do so at random, and perhaps throw away the suit of which B has the small one. By discarding his useless trump (which B would proceed to draw) he defers parting with either queen till after the next round, when the fall of the cards may assist him. B now leads a trump, and Y discards the losing club. B then leads another trump, and Z now knows that he ought to keep the spade. This case actually occurred in the presence of the writer, but Z, instead of undertrumping, discarded the wrong queen at random, and eventually lost the rubber in consequence.

---

For further illustrations of the Grand Coup, see Hands XXXVIII and XXXIX.

---

If the foregoing principles are reflectively perused, it will be seen that they mould the Theory of Whist into a harmonious whole. The Theory of Whist tells you how to play your own hand to the greatest advantage, how to assist your partner, and how to weaken and to obstruct your opponents; in short, it teaches how to take the best chance of making the greatest number of tricks. This knowledge constitutes a sound player. If to theoretical perfection you add the power of accurate observation, and of acute perception, together with a thorough comprehension of the whist capacities of partners and of opponents, you have all the elements necessary to form a Master of the Science.

---

The following hands are given in illustration of the general principles discussed in Part I. The plan adopted in the arrangement of the hands is to imitate closely the circumstances of actual play. Thus, at starting, one player's hand is known, together with the score and the turn-up card. Each player is then caused to play a card in his turn, and at the end of the trick, the one player whose hand is known makes observations, and draws inferences from the play, as though he were at the whist table.

A, Y, B, and Z, are the four players throughout. They are placed at the table in the above order, A and B being partners against Y and Z. A is the first leader, and Z the dealer. In "the play" the cards of each trick are placed in the order in which the players sit round the table, the card played by the person whose hand is under consideration being the one nearest to the reader. The capital letter by each card shows to which player it belongs.

All the players are supposed to follow the ordinary rules of play, as laid down in Part I. Thus, each player is credited with leading originally from his strongest suit, and with leading the card of it indicated in the Analysis of Leads (pp. 64-71); with playing the lowest of a sequence when not leading; with returning the highest of a numerically weak suit, the lowest of a strong suit, and so on.

It has been remarked by critics, that the players are often made to play badly. Most of the hands are taken from actual play; but, independently of this, illustrations of indifferent play, with comments, are obviously of value, as showing the kind of errors that are likely to be made, and how and why to avoid them.

---

Trump lead from four trumps on establishment of suit.

Remark.—A leads from his strongest suit (see p. 56). Having no sequence, he leads the lowest card of the suit (see p. 60).

The fall of the queen and ace in this round, leaves A with the winning diamonds and a small one. His suit is virtually established (see p. 57).

Remark.—A plays his lowest card second hand (see p. 82).

B allowing the queen to win, may be presumed not to have the king.

Remark.—It is unlucky that A is obliged to win his partner's queen. The king of hearts is most probably in B's hand, as it is not likely that B has only one heart, and with queen and small ones B would pass.

Remark.—This is an instructive trump lead. A, at the first start, with but four trumps, and only one heart, would not have been justified in leading a trump. But, his strong suit being established, and his partner having (probably) the best heart, his game is now to lead trumps. Consider carefully the Management of Trumps (pp. 119-23), and apply the arguments there made use of to the present situation.

Remark (Trick 5).—A finesses the ten (see pp. 93-94).

Remarks.—At Trick 9, A forces the best trump, and remains with the thirteenth to bring in the diamond. If Z refuses the force, A (Trick 10) leads nine of diamonds and (Trick 11) the losing trump.

At Trick 10, if A plays ace of clubs he will be left with a losing club. By passing, he gives B a chance of winning the trick, and cannot lose even if Y has king of clubs. It has been suggested that Z's best lead, at Trick 10, is king of clubs, on the chance of catching ace and knave; but Z's play is not under examination.

---

Tricks 11 to 13.—Whatever B leads, A makes the remaining tricks, and

AB win three by cards.

(A's hand is given above.)

---

Trump lead from four moderate trumps.

Remark (Trick 3).—B has four trumps, and defence in hearts and clubs, his partner's suit is established, and no adverse strength in trumps has been exhibited. B therefore leads trumps. (Consider carefully the arguments at pp. 122, 123, respecting leads from four trumps, and apply them to this case.) To judge when to lead from four moderate trumps is an important point in the game, which hands such as this are given to illustrate and explain.

Tricks 9 to 13.—Z leads knave of hearts which B wins. B draws the two trumps (if he remembers down to the seven) and brings in the diamonds, and

AB win two by cards.

(B's hand is given above.)

At Trick 2, A leads his original fourth-best diamond (see Appendix A). In this hand it is immaterial whether A makes the American lead or not.

---

A simple elementary hand, save in one point which demands strict attention to the rule respecting returned leads (see pp. 79-81).

Remark.—A leads from his strongest suit (see p. 66). Holding ace, queen, knave, ten, he leads out ace and ten (see Analysis of Leads, p. 66).

Remark.—A continues his suit (see p. 74).

As the cards happen to lie A would have been able to make a successful finesse against the king of spades. But A, not having seen Z's hand, can only play on general principles.

Remark (Trick 6).—A has now the command of his suit, and four trumps. The adversaries have not shown any particular strength in trumps, either by leading them or by calling for them, though they have had the opportunity of doing both, and A therefore assumes that the trumps are pretty evenly divided, and leads a trump (see pp. 122, 123). A is not deterred from opening the trump suit because an honour was turned up (see p. 122).

---

B's winning the trick with the queen shows that Z has not got the king.

Remark (Trick 7).—B returns his partner's lead of trumps (see p. 125).

---

This is the important trick of the hand. Note the card returned by B, the seven, and if in doubt as to the fall of the trumps, look at the previous trick (see Law 91, p. 18). In that trick, the small clubs that fall are the three, six, and four, and in the present one, the seven, five, and ten. Nobody having played the two, A may place it by inference in B's hand, for the adversaries not winning the trick may be supposed to play their lowest cards. Assuming B to hold the two, it may be inferred that he has that card and no other left in the suit. For he returns the seven, a higher card than the two; and the rule is to return the higher of two remaining cards, the lowest if holding more than two (see p. 80. Consider carefully the example given there, and apply it to the present situation).

The king and knave are therefore in the opponents' hands, and divided. Z has the knave (which he turned up), and he has not the king, as he could not win the queen in the previous trick. Y must consequently hold it.

It may be objected that this train of reasoning is too close and elaborate to serve the purpose of inexperienced players. It is, perhaps, a little difficult for an elementary hand; but the careful observance of the rule of play respecting returned leads is so important, that it has been deemed advisable to insist strongly upon it. Of course, when playing with those who do not attend to the conversation of the game, all pains bestowed on working out the position of the cards from such data as the preceding is so much trouble thrown away.

Assuming, then, that A's partner can be depended on to play according to rule, it is morally certain that the trumps are evenly divided, and that a third round will leave A with a long trump to bring in his spades. Accordingly, A leads the eight of clubs (see Trick 8, above).

Tricks 10 to 13.—B (Trick 10) leads a small diamond, though, as the cards happen to lie, his lead is immaterial. A trumps the diamond, and brings in the spades; and

AB win three by cards.

(A's hand is given above.)

---

An instructive hand, illustrative of playing to the score.

Remark.—A leads from his strongest suit (see p. 56).

Remark.—It may be inferred that hearts are Y's strongest suit.

Remark (Trick 3).—A having found his partner weak in spades (see Trick 1), does not continue his suit (see p. 75).

Remark.—Presuming the players are to be depended on for following the elementary rules of the game, it is clear from the fall of the cards that Y holds the remaining heart, the nine. B drops the ten, so he ought not to have the nine, the rule being to play the lowest card when not able to win the trick. Z ought not to have another heart, for he returned the six (see Trick 4), and now plays the three. Having returned the higher card he can hold no more (see p. 80).

Remark.—It is evident that Z, dropping the ten, will trump the next round of diamonds. Nevertheless, A's game is to continue the diamond (Trick 7), to give Z the lead, and to make B last player.

Remark (Trick 7).—Y, dropping the nine of diamonds, may be taken to have no more, as, not being able to win the trick, he is assumed to play his smallest. The remaining diamonds are therefore with B.

Remark.—Z, with ace, queen, second hand (see his hand below), follows the usual rule (see p. 86). It is open to argument whether Z should depart from rule in this case. But Z's hand is not the one under examination.

Remark.—The fall of the queen of spades from Y shows A that the two remaining spades are in Z's hand. Z's third card is the queen of clubs, which he turned up.

Remark (Trick 12).—A's lead here is instructive. He knows his partner (B) has one diamond and no spade and no heart (see Tricks 5, 7, and 10). B's other card must therefore be a club (trump). If it is the best trump, A wins two by cards by leading a trump. But if it is not the winning trump, a trump lead loses the odd trick. It is better to make certain of the odd trick than to risk losing it for the chance of winning two by cards; for the odd trick makes a difference of two to the score. A therefore properly ensures the odd trick by forcing his partner (see p. 134).

Suppose the score to be AB three, and YZ one. Then A would be justified in leading the trump at Trick 12. For, if B has the ten, AB win two by cards and the game; and, if B has not the ten, AB lose the odd trick; the score remaining AB three, YZ two. It is better to run the risk of this score for the sake of the game, than to make certain of scoring only four and of leaving the adversaries at one.

AB win the odd trick.

(A's hand is given above.)

In the following hands the comments will be fewer, it being assumed that explanations of ordinary play are unnecessary.

---

Illustrative of the advantage of returning the highest of a short suit.

Remark (Trick 2).—A's finesse here is justifiable, because he has strength in trumps (see p. 94). With only three trumps, A's better play would be to secure the trick at once.

Remark.—Note the advantage of the return of the strengthening card at Trick 2, in accordance with General Principle 5 (p. 79). The command is left with the presumably strong hand; and the queen is completely hemmed in. It is true the queen might have been in Y's hand. In that case the queen must make whatever card is returned. A similar position occurs at Trick 9.

Remark.—A did not lead the trump at first; but now he does so for these reasons: he has the long card of his suit; trumps are his strongest suit (p. 119); and the adversaries have had the opportunity of calling for trumps (see pp. 125, 126), and have not made use of it, which is negative evidence that there is no very great strength of trumps in one hand.

Remark (Trick 7).—A being strong in trumps passes the doubtful card (see p. 129).

Tricks 10 to 13.—B leads the five of spades, which brings down all the outstanding trumps. A makes the thirteenth club and the trump; the adversary makes the king of diamonds (see the hands below).

---

AB win two by cards.

(A's hand is given above.)

---

Playing to the score.

Remark (Trick 6).—The lead here is the point in the hand. Y has three tricks up; there is a whole suit (clubs) against him, and his adversary B has called for trumps (see Tricks 3 and 4). It is, consequently, Y's duty to make five tricks (which save the game if Z has an honour) as quickly as possible. He therefore leads the ace of spades to make the fourth trick, and (Trick 7) forces his partner (though without any strength of trumps in his own hand, see pp. 132, 133) to make the fifth.

Tricks 9 to 13.—A leads a trump (the knave, see his hand below), in obedience to the call, and

AB score two by cards and two by honours.

(Y's hand is given above.)

---

At Trick 2, B, with the club suit well nigh established (assuming his partner to have led from strength), and four trumps, two honours, should risk a trump lead. He cannot lose the game; and if his partner has an average hand, a trump lead will, in all probability, give AB a good score. As a matter of fact it would win the game, but that proves nothing.

---

The lead of the fourth-best (see Appendix A), and counting the hands (see pp. 116-17).

Remark (Trick 2).—Z's better play would be to open the heart suit.

Remark.—It is now clear that Y led from five hearts originally (see his lead, Trick 3, and p. 116). Consequently, YZ have all the remaining hearts between them.

Remark.—Z can count his partner's hand, viz., three more hearts (see Remark, Trick 9) and one other card, either the deuce of diamonds (see the fall of the diamonds, Tricks 4 and 5), or a trump. If Y has the diamond, it matters not what Z leads, as B must then hold four trumps. Z therefore assumes that his partner has another trump, and plays to force him.

But if Z could not tell that Y has three hearts, or rather could tell that he has only two, Z's proper lead at Trick 10 would be the ace of hearts. For then B must have a heart, and if Z leads a losing diamond, B discards his heart on it, and wins the game.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 6, B should play to force his partner in hearts instead of leading trumps.

---

Playing to the score and to the fall of the cards.

Game won in spite of partner's bad play.

Remark.—Drawing two for one.

Remark.—Y must have knave.

Remark (Trick 9).—Z manages to win the game, in spite of his partner, by putting on ace second hand and leading a club.

Tricks 11 to 13.—Z (Trick 11) leads a club; Y makes two more tricks in clubs, and

YZ win two by cards.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 3, Y plays badly to trump the doubtful spade (see p. 129). At same trick, B plays well to get rid of the command of his partner's suit (see p. 96), as A, from the lead, must have knave of spades, and Z, from the previous fall of the cards, must have the ten single.

At Trick 4, Y's continuing the trump is bad, after ruining his numerical strength. For he has no particular strength out of trumps (see his hand), and his partner is evidently very weak in trumps.

As the cards happen to lie, if Z does not put on ace of diamonds second hand at Trick 9, A brings in the spades, and YZ lose the game instead of winning it.

---

Counting the cards.

Remark.—B has led from a suit of at least five diamonds.

Remark (Trick 8).—Well played by A. He can count B's hand. The ten of diamonds is marked in Y's hand, so B has two diamonds and three hearts. Therefore B must have had four hearts originally, and as it is not the game to put on knave, second hand, with four, holding less than three honours (see Trick 3 and Analysis of Play of Second Hand, p. 85), B must hold both king and queen of hearts.

---

Tricks 9 to 13.—B leads king, queen of hearts, to which A discards clubs. A makes his three trumps, and

AB score three by cards and two by honours.

(A's hand is given above.)

At Trick 7, Z does not lead his original fourth-best, as great strength in trumps is declared against him. (See Appendix A.)

At Trick 8, Y's play is difficult. He might have noticed that his best chance of winning the game is for A to hold only winning hearts and a losing club; and this being so, Y should not lead a diamond.

---

Counting the hands. Simple instance of departure from rule.

Remark (Trick 9).—The lead of ace, followed by knave, indicates a five card suit, headed by ace, queen, knave, and a desire that partner, if he holds the king, should put it on second round (see p. 101). But in this case Y can count the hands, and therefore departs from rule, and does not put on the king. Z has a trump, and three diamonds, the ten guarded being in B's hand. If Y follows rule and puts on king of diamonds, he loses a trick in diamonds; by passing the knave, he ensures five by cards.

---

Tricks 11 to 13.—Whatever Y leads, Z makes the remaining tricks, and

YZ win five by cards.

(Y's hand is given above.)

At Trick 2 Z's trump lead is rather forward, but justifiable with his hand at the score of love-all, especially as Y must hold the ace of clubs.

---

Discarding, and playing to the score.

Remark.—Y has called for trumps.

Tricks 9 to 13.—Y (Trick 9) leads a spade. He is directed to the spade suit by Z's original discard of a club at Trick 6 (see p. 104), notwithstanding that Z has since discarded two spades. Z plays properly to keep his queen of clubs guarded after his first discard, as he only wants at most two tricks besides the two trumps which he knows to be in Y's hand. Y, at Trick 8, leads a heart to show he has all the other hearts, as it is possible that the best heart may be held up by the adversary. Y thus tells Z not to finesse if he has one trick certain (see score).

Z puts on the ace of spades, at Trick 9, as that card and the two trumps in Y's hand make the game. If Z finesses he only scores four, as will be seen by referring to the hands below. Z's play would not be right if he had only five tricks up, as he would then want one more trick to win the game. In that case he should finesse. This is a good illustration of playing to the score.

YZ score three by cards and two by honours.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 3, A is justified in risking a force on his partner, though weak in trumps himself. Strength in trumps has been adversely declared by the call (see pp. 132, 133), and there is nothing to show that B has not the queen of diamonds.

At Trick 4, it is doubtful whether A should cover the strengthening card led (see p. 88).

---

Discarding.

Remark (Trick 3).—The knave of diamonds, and therefore the command of trumps, is marked in Y's hand.

Remark (Trick 7).—Z properly concludes, as his partner has command of trumps (see Remark, Trick 3), that his discard (Trick 6) was from his weakest suit, notwithstanding the adverse trump lead, and therefore Z leads clubs. If Z mistakes the character of his partner's discard, and leads a heart, he loses the game (see pp. 105-6, and apply the rules of play there stated to the present situation).

---

Tricks 9 to 13.—Y brings in the clubs (see his hand below), and

YZ win the odd trick.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 7, A is right to cover the queen of clubs (see p. 88).

---

Getting rid of the command of partner's suit (see p. 97).

Remark.—See p. 97.

Tricks 11 to 13.—Z (Trick 11) leads deuce of diamonds. Y makes two tricks in diamonds (note the advantage to YZ of Z's having got rid of the command).

YZ win the odd trick.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 2, Z plays the turn-up card (see p. 114).

At Trick 3, B passes the nine of trumps. If the tenace is against him covering does no good; and there is a reasonable chance that the ace will fall.

At Trick 6, B, having found A weak in trumps, and the whole diamond suit being declared against him, alters his tactics, and does not continue trumps.

At Trick 7, Y plays properly in attempting to force the strong trump hand, keeping knave of hearts with which to trump clubs. If B refuses the first force he wins two or three by cards, as the cards happen to lie. But he cannot place the diamonds, and probably his best play is to trump.

---

Finessing.

Remark (Trick 9).—A's finesse is unlucky. He has no indication as to the position of the queen. The finesse must not be judged by the result. It is generally right against one card if the success of the finesse wins the game.

---

Tricks 10 to 13.—YZ make two tricks in diamonds (see their hands below); and

YZ win the odd trick.

(A's hand is given above.)

At Trick 6, Y's lead is not well judged. He knows his partner to hold king of clubs single, and his object should be to prevent the two trumps from being drawn together. Y's best lead appears to be queen of hearts; and if it wins, a diamond.

---

Counting the hands, and refusing a finesse.

Remark (Trick 1).—A has not both king and queen of diamonds, or he would have led one. B has not either king or queen of diamonds, or he would have played one of them instead of the ace. Therefore, Y must have one of those cards. Z draws this inference at the time. It will not be of any use to him until near the end of the hand.

Remark.—B has led from exactly five clubs (see Appendix A).

Remark.—The ace would be an echo (see p. 128).

Remark (Trick 6).—The policy of this lead is doubtful. Players are apt to show their suits in this manner. But it is clear, the opponents having led diamonds and clubs, that if Z has strength in any suit it is in spades. The objections to showing a suit in this way are: 1, that it may be trumped the first round; 2, that partner may have only one card of it. In the latter case he cannot return the lead, and must open or continue another suit to a disadvantage.

Remark.—Y has the long trump.

Remark (Trick 9).—Z's play in not finessing is very good. He can count Y's hand, thus: Y has no more clubs (see Remark, Trick 3), he has the last trump, and three other cards. These cards must either be queen, ten of spades, and a diamond, in which case Z's play does not matter; or the nine returned by Y must be his best spade, in which case he can only have one more, as he would return the higher of two remaining cards (see p. 79), and his other cards must then be two diamonds. Therefore, assuming the case in which Z's play does matter (i.e., of Y's nine being his best spade), Y's diamond must be guarded.

Consequently, Z, by not finessing, makes sure of the game. He requires one more trick besides the ace of spades and his partner's trump, and this trick Y is certain to make in diamonds if Z leads through A's hand (see Remark, Trick 1).

---

Tricks 10 to 13.—Z (Trick 10) leads a diamond, and, however A plays,

YZ score three by cards and two by honours.

(Z's hand is given above.)

As the cards happen to lie, YZ only score four if Z finesses at Trick 9, and A plays properly. A, on winning this trick with the queen of spades, should see that his only chance of making two more tricks is to be led up to in diamonds. He should therefore (Trick 10) lead the seven of diamonds, which Y is compelled to take, and AB save the game.

---

Leading losing card to place the lead (see pp. 147-151).

Remark.—Y has the king of spades.

Remark.—It is probable that A is weak in trumps, as he refused to force his partner in diamonds. Nevertheless, B leads a trump, as he is well provided in spades, and has some defence in the club suit.

Remark (Trick 6).—The queen of hearts must be in Z's hand, as A returned the four and now plays the two, and Y renounces.

Remark (Trick 10).—B leads the losing club to throw the lead into Y's hand. Y will then be obliged to lead a spade, as he has no other suit. Z will have to follow suit, or will be forced with the queen of trumps, and B will make the ace of spades and the last trump.

---

Tricks 11 to 13.—Y (Trick 11) leads a spade, B puts on the queen, and

AB score three by cards and two by honours.

(B's hand is given above.)

At Trick 8, Y should underplay in clubs.

---

Leading losing card to place the lead (see pp. 147-151).

Remark (Trick 11).—Y leads the losing spade to put the lead into A's hand (see fall of the spades, Tricks 1, 4, and 10), and so compel A to lead hearts up to Z. At this score (YZ, one) this is the best chance of four by cards. If the score were YZ, love, Y should lead a heart, as leading the spade gives up all chance of five by cards.

Tricks 12 and 13.—Z has ace, queen of hearts; and

YZ win four by cards.

(Y's hand is given above.)

At Trick 4, B, having a weak hand, plays his partner's game, in preference to planning an attack for himself by opening his own poor suit of four to the knave.

---

Underplay.

Remark (Trick 4).—Y has led from ace, queen, knave, ten; and B, the weak trump hand, has no more clubs.

Remark (Trick 5).—Z underplays in trumps. To continue hearts, with queen, king marked against him (see Trick 2), or to open diamonds, would be very disadvantageous, so a trump lead is forced, more especially as Y has command of clubs, and B is about to trump that suit. The lead of ace or king of trumps would leave the lead with Z, who would then still be in a difficulty as to his next lead. Further, it is of importance to endeavour to place the lead in Y's hand, that he may continue clubs. Also, if the underplay succeeds, it is not at all unlikely that YZ will win the game.

Tricks 8 to 13.—Z makes ace, king of trumps, and

YZ win the game.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 5, if A puts on queen of spades, second hand, he saves the game. May be, a very shrewd player would have seen through the position, including the importance of preventing Y from getting the lead if possible; but A can hardly be blamed for passing, as it is unlikely that both ace and king of spades are in Z's hand.

---

Underplay, and playing to the score.

Remark (Trick 3).—Y is justified in playing a forward game. He has four trumps (see pp. 122, 123), ace of the opponent's suit, and a fine heart suit: and his partner has declared strength in diamonds by choosing that suit for his original lead.

Remark (Trick 6).—Y is justified in playing a false card here, notwithstanding General Principle 12 (p. 108). The heart is a forced lead, and the card led (the ten) is obviously A's best. Y's scheme is to take another round of trumps, and then to underplay in hearts (see p. 101); so he puts on the ace to deceive B as to the position of the king.

Tricks 9 to 13.—Z leads the king of clubs, to which Y discards the two of diamonds. Z then leads the knave of hearts, on which Y puts the king; the queen falls (see the hands below); Y brings in the hearts; and

YZ win five by cards.

(Y's hand is given above.)

A and B both play the hand badly. At Trick 6, A, in the face of an adverse trump lead and the command of his suit (clubs) against him, should lead the ace of diamonds to make the third trick and save the game. At Trick 8, B should put on his queen of hearts. He is fairly taken in by Y's dark play at Trick 6; but he ought not to have allowed himself to be so. He should have argued that Y, who has been playing a very strong game, would not be likely to put on ace second hand merely for the purpose of getting the lead or of making sure of a trick. Further, if A's lead was a forced one, from weakness (hearts being the only suit in which B can be strong), Z is sure to finesse if he has king, knave, or even king, nine. So B's best chance of making the queen is to put it on (see p. 102).

---

Defensive trump lead, and playing to the score.

Remark (Trick 1).—A defensive trump lead, to avoid opening a three card suit.

Remark (Trick 4).—A's finesse is unlucky. He is, however, clearly justified in not parting with the command of trumps, as, even if the finesse does not succeed, he remains with the last trump, will be led up to in one of his guarded suits, and will, in all probability, bring in his partner's diamonds.

Tricks 9 to 13.—A leads the queen of diamonds, and finds his partner with the entire command of diamonds (see B's hand below).

AB score three by cards and two by honours.

(A's hand is given above.)

It may be observed that Z loses the game by bad play at Trick 7. The fall of the cards in Tricks 5 and 6 shows that A has the queen of hearts, and Y the king. Z should therefore, at Trick 7, lead the ace of spades to make the fourth trick, and then the heart, making the fifth trick and saving the game.

At Trick 8, if Y leads a spade and Z does not finesse, the game may be saved. To finesse at that point would be very bad play, as the ace of spades makes the fifth trick. But Y's play at Trick 8, though unfortunate, is not wrong; for Y cannot tell that Z has the ace of spades; indeed, the presumption is that he has not, or he would have led it. Y properly plays to force the long trump, and to make his partner fourth player.

---

An ill-judged call for trumps, and a well-judged third round, notwithstanding the adverse strength.

Remark.—Z has called for trumps.

Remark.—The fall of the spades (see Tricks 3, 4, and 5) shows that the three is in Y's hand.

Remark.—It is seldom right to continue trumps when led by the opponents; but this is an exceptional case. B plays well in drawing two trumps for one, as it is evident that if Y and Z make their trumps separately they must win the odd trick.

Tricks 11 to 13.—Whatever Z leads, B makes ace, queen of hearts; and

AB win the odd trick.

(B's hand is given above.)

Z's call for trumps is ill-judged, especially at the score of four-all. The whole club suit is declared against him, as Y, putting on ace, second hand, can have no more. If Z does not call, he wins the game easily.

---

Returned lead, and refusing a force.

Remark (Trick 2).—B has the five of spades, and Y the king. A, therefore, does not continue the trump, but leaves the small spade in his partner's hand.

Remark (Trick 9).—A knows B has two more clubs (see Tricks 7 and 8, and p. 106). A, therefore, desires to leave the lead with Y, that he may go on with another club, and so clear B's suit.

Remark (Trick 11).—A leads his smallest heart, as he does not want to tempt B to finesse (see p. 142). B has ace, queen of hearts (see his hand below), but he does not finesse, as the ace of hearts, last club, and A's trump make every trick.

AB win four by cards.

(A's hand is given above.)

Y should play queen of clubs at Trick 7, and ace of clubs at Trick 9, when A will not have sufficient materials for his coup, as he will be uncertain as to the position of the best club. Y gives his adversary too much information by playing book (see p. 113). When the adversaries have command of trumps, it is often advisable, towards the end of a hand, to play so as not to enable them to count the cards.

---

Refusing to overtrump.

Remark (Trick 6).-A does not overtrump. This is the sort of coup for which no rule can be laid down in a book, as it depends entirely on the state of the game and the previous fall of the cards. A sees, that his only chance of two by cards is for the remaining trumps to be divided, and for him to be able to get two rounds before he loses the command of hearts. If then his partner has ace, queen of spades, he may win the game against two by honours.

Tricks 11 to 13.—Z leads a heart which A wins. A leads a spade, and finds his partner with ace, queen; and

AB win two by cards (which score before honours).

(A's hand is given above.)

---

Refusing to overtrump.

Remark (Trick 10).—Y's play in not overtrumping is very good. He counts the hand thus: to save the game Z must hold ace, queen, or ace, knave of spades; his third card is evidently the remaining diamond. A has the nine of clubs (see fall of the club suit in Tricks 2, 7, and 9), and two trumps. B has two trumps, one being queen or knave (see Trick 9), and king, knave of clubs. If the cards remaining in each hand are placed face upwards on the table, and the uncertain cards, viz., the nine, four, and three of trumps are given two to A, and one to B, it will be seen that, if Y overtrumps with the seven, he cannot make the requisite three tricks; but that, if he leaves the lead with A, YZ make the remaining tricks.

It may be added, that if, at Trick 10, A discards his club, and keeps his three little trumps together, leaving the trick to B, AB must win the odd trick if B leads a trump at Trick 11 after trumping. This A might have reckoned.

(Y's hand is given above.)

---

See Refusing to overtrump, pp. 146, 147.

Remark (Trick 10).—B can count A's hand—viz., a spade and two diamonds. Therefore, if B overtrumps he cannot possibly win two more tricks.

Tricks 12 and 13.—Z leads a trump (he has only trumps in hand), and B makes ace and eight.

AB win two by cards.

(B's hand is given above.)

The end play of this hand is difficult. At Trick 9, Y leads three of hearts in preference to the queen, as he can count an honour single in A's hand. At Trick 10, A's best lead is doubtful. At Trick 10, also, probably Y should trump with the queen (see p. 147); but even then, B must place ten of hearts in Y's hand.

---

Counting the hands, and consequent departure from rule.

Remark (Trick 7).—This is strong illustration of a case for departing from rule. Y can count two more trumps, and three more spades in A's hand (see A's leads, Tricks 3 and 6, and p. 116). It is clear that A can have at most two hearts; consequently, if Y leads his tierce major in hearts, he must lose the game, as the opponents have two by honours. But, if Y can give his partner the lead, and Z has four more clubs, or the winning club, and A makes the mistake of trumping it, YZ may make every trick, and win the game.

Y would be right to play as he does even if A had led from only four spades. With a strong trump hand declared against, and a long weak suit, it is doubtful whether A should not have led the deuce of spades at Trick 3 (see Appendix A); but the hand is given as it was played.

---

Tricks 9 to 13.—Z continues to lead clubs (see his hand below), and whether A passes or trumps,

YZ score four by cards.

(Y's hand is given above.)

---

See Leading from weakest suit, p. 141.

Remark.—By the first discard Z shows his strong suit to be spades. In an ordinary hand, Z might afterwards throw a diamond. But here, Y must be strong in diamonds, in order to save the game; and it is important for Z to keep the power of leading that suit more than once.

Remark.—B covers the honour, because the lead was from weakness. B plays badly; he should have passed the knave. For, A has shown four more trumps, and only one other trick is required. Hence, if A has ace or king of spades, the game is won to a moral certainty; if not, no good is got by covering.

Tricks 11 to 13.—A, with the lead, remains with the last trump and king, knave of diamonds. He (Trick 11) leads the trump; but, whatever he plays,

YZ win the odd trick.

(Z's hand is given above.)

A plays well throughout, but he cannot prevent the result. His lead of the trump at Trick 3 to show his strength, and to tell his partner to make one trick certain if he has the chance, is unlucky, as it puts the adversaries on the only tack for saving the game.

---

See Treating long suits like short ones, pp. 142, 143.

Remark (Trick 9).—Deschapelles' Coup. B can count A's hand, three diamonds and two hearts, for the ten, nine of clubs are clearly with Y (see Tricks 7 and 8). B therefore leads the king of hearts (see p. 142). If he makes the usual lead of a small heart, he wins a trick less as the cards happen to lie.

Trick 13.—A makes the king of diamonds; and

AB score two by cards and two by honours.

If Y, at Trick 4, discards a heart, he saves the game. Nevertheless, his proper discard is the club (see pp. 104-5).

(B's hand is given above.)

---

See Refusing to win the second round of a suit, p. 143.

Tricks 10 to 13.—Z brings in the diamonds; and

YZ win three by cards.

(Z's hand is given above.)

At Trick 4, A having already shown his suit does not discard from it, as there is still a possibility of bringing it in (see pp. 104-6), and his king of clubs is sufficiently protected even after the discard.

If Z parts with the last trump at Trick 6, and leads diamonds, A, on the second round of diamonds, will unguard his king of clubs, knowing his partner to have a heart to lead him (see fall of the heart suit, Tricks 1, 4, and 5), will bring in all the hearts, and win the odd trick.

---

See Refusing to win the second round of a suit, pp. 143, 144.

Remark (Trick 6).—B has next to no chance of bringing in the diamonds. He therefore plays to protect his short suits (see pp. 104-6).

Remark (Trick 7).—B refuses to win this trick. The three of clubs is clearly in Z's hand (see fall of the club suit, Tricks 5 and 7), and the two long trumps. The remaining clubs are evidently in Y's hand. If, therefore, B parts with the ace of clubs while Z has a club to lead, AB lose the game, unless A has the king of spades; and if A has that card, B loses nothing by passing this trick, as Z, having only one more club, must hold three spades.

Tricks 11 to 13.—B (Trick 11) leads the last diamond, and forces Z. Z (Trick 12) has only spades to lead; B makes ace, queen of spades; and

YZ score two by cards and two by honours.

(B's hand is given above).

---

See Declining to draw the losing trump, pp. 144, 145.

Remark.—It is evident that Z's lead was from king, knave, ten, &c., and that B has no more hearts. Y returning the nine, and the two not falling, must have the two single, and the other hearts are with Z.

Remark.—The case now arises contemplated at p. 145. A has the best trump and the lead; Y the losing trump. Y also has one card of his partner's established suit (see Remark, Trick 5). A therefore (Trick 7) does not draw the trump.

Tricks 11 to 13.—Y has nothing but clubs to lead. A wins the three tricks; and

YZ win the odd trick.

If, at Trick 7, A draws the trump, YZ win two by cards.

(A's hand is given above.)

---

See Throwing high cards to place the lead, pp. 147-149.

Remark.—B has no more spades.

Remark (Trick 8).—Well played by A. He sees that if he obtains the lead on the second round of diamonds he must continue the spade suit, a course demonstrably fatal to him, unless his partner has the queen of diamonds together with the long hearts (see fall of hearts, Trick 7). By throwing the king to the ace A avoids the lead, and saves the game if his partner has either queen or knave of diamonds (as may be seen by placing the cards), unless the adversaries continue the spade suit, when the game cannot be saved, by any course of play. This clever coup occurred in actual play.

Tricks 10 to 13.—B brings in the hearts, winning two more tricks; A makes his trump; and

YZ score the odd trick and two by honours.

(A's hand is given above.)

At Trick 2, B does not cover (see p. 88).

---

See Throwing high cards to place the lead, pp. 147-149

Remark.—Y has the knave of diamonds.

Remark (Trick 10).—A plays very well in putting on the ace. He wants two more tricks besides his ace of hearts to save the game. The last trump and best diamond are against him. It is clear, therefore, if A has the lead after the second round of hearts (when he must lead a diamond), he loses the game. It is also clear that unless B has king, knave, and a small heart, the game is gone.

YZ score two by cards and two by honours.

(A's hand is given above.)

At Trick 2, Y is in difficulties. His strong suit has been led by his right-hand adversary. Under these circumstances, he leads from his strongest weak suit.

At Trick 6, Y's play in continuing the trump is open to criticism. His better lead seems to be knave of diamonds. Z wins his partner's ten of trumps in order to draw all the trumps. It is very bad play, for if Z passes the ten, and Y leads the knave of diamonds, the game is certain. This is an example of the very common error of winning partner's trick. It should seldom be done, and only if a positive advantage can be well-nigh demonstrated from doing it.

At Trick 11, the advantage of winning partner's trick—when judiciously done—is shown. B, seeing A's anxiety to get rid of the lead, rightly conjectures that A has two more diamonds. He therefore takes the only course to save the game, by winning his partner's queen of hearts.

---

Echo of the Call (see p. 128).

Remark (Trick 2).—Y has called for trumps. Z, having four trumps himself, commences to echo his partner's call.

Remark.—Z completes the echo of the call.

Remark (Trick 6).—Z having echoed, Y has no hesitation in leading trumps again after being forced a second time.

Tricks 10 to 13.—A (Trick 10) leads queen of diamonds, which analysis shows is rather better than a club, though, as the cards happen to lie, his lead is immaterial. Y trumps the diamond, and

YZ score three by cards and two by honours.

---

But for the echo, the game might have been missed. If after being forced a second time, at Trick 5, Y deems it prudent not to continue trumps, and leads two rounds of diamonds, B makes a small trump, and the game is saved.

(Z's hand is given above.)

---

Leading losing trump, to place the lead.

Remarks (Tricks 3 and 4).—Y leads fourth-best; Z echoes; but as the cards lie, it so happens that the position of the hearts would be independently marked after Trick 5.

Remark (Trick 10).—Well played by Y. He can count his partner's hand, viz., the eight of trumps (see Remark, Trick 4, and the fall of the hearts, Tricks 3, 4, and 5), the last club, and a losing spade, as Z having put on the ace of spades (Trick 9), cannot have the king. Y therefore trumps with the nine, and (Trick 11) leads the seven of hearts to put the lead in Z's hand. Z (Trick 12) leads the club, to which Y discards the ten of spades; and

YZ win five by cards.

(Y's hand is given above.)

At Trick 4, B should have led a spade. A having shown at least five diamonds by leading ace, then knave (see p. 66), the diamond is sure to be trumped, and it may force the weak trump hand, or may allow one adversary to discard and the other to trump.

---

Echo after a force (see p. 129).

Remark.—B has called.

Remark.—A has echoed. He therefore had at least four trumps originally.

Remark.—The remaining trump is in A's hand. But for the echo, it might be in Z's hand.

Remark (Trick 9).—B can now lead ace of diamonds, without fear of its being trumped (see Remark, Trick 8). If the position of the other trump were uncertain, the lead of the ace of diamonds would be wrong. For, by leading nine of trumps, B can make certain of saving the game (see score); whereas, if Z has a trump, and trumps the ace of diamonds, B loses the game, as Y will then make a diamond.

---

Tricks 11 to 13.—B makes his three trumps, and

AB win the game.

(B's hand is given above.)

---

Coup of compelling a discard, same in principle as the Vienna Coup.

Remark (Trick 9).—Well played by Y. He can count B's hand as follows: ten and two small diamonds; queen of spades (see Trick 6—the lead of the king could only be from king, queen); and one other card, probably a small spade, for had B another heart he would most likely have continued his partner's original lead, instead of changing the suit. Y now leads a trump in hopes that B will discard the small spade, when Y will lead the seven of spades to throw the lead into B's hand, and B will be obliged to lead a diamond up to Y's tenace.

B, however, discards a diamond. Y continues his tactics (see Trick 10), leading another trump. This compels another discard from B. If B discards the small spade, Y leads the losing spade; if B discards another diamond, Y establishes the diamonds, and in either case wins the game. This fine coup occurred in actual play.

---

Tricks 11 to 13.—Y (Trick 11) leads the spade. B is obliged (Trick 12) to lead a diamond; and

YZ score three by cards and two by honours.

(Y's hand is given above.)

At Trick 10, B should notice that he must lose the game if he retains the queen of spades. His only chance of saving the game here is to discard the queen of spades, in hopes of finding his partner with two tricks in spades, or with a trick in spades and hearts. If A has not these cards, the game is lost.

---

Grand Coup (see pp. 151-155).

Remark.—The fall of the king shows that the remaining clubs are in Y's hand.

Remark.—Well played by B. All the hearts are out; the remaining diamonds are in Z's hand (see fall of the diamonds, Tricks, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), and all the clubs are in Y's hand. Y must therefore have three trumps and two spades. If B discards a spade to this trick, he cannot avoid leading trumps twice up to Y. In that case Y will make two tricks in trumps, saving the game, as will be apparent by so playing the cards. The result is otherwise if B trumps his partner's best heart. He can then lead out ace and king of spades, to which Y must follow suit; and by continuing with the five of clubs (the nine, eight, and three are in against him), B secures the tenace, and wins the game.

---

Tricks 9 to 13.—B (Tricks 9 and 10) leads spades, and (Trick 11) the six of clubs. B makes the last two tricks, and

AB score three by cards and two by honours.

(B's hand is given above.)

At Trick 4, Z leads his lowest diamond, though holding five, because strength in trumps is declared against. (See Appendix A).

---

Grand Coup (see pp. 151-155).

Remark.—B has called.

Remark.—B has three of trumps.

Remark.—A plays a masterly coup in trumping with the four. He argues that B, having a weak hand, would not call for trumps with less than five trumps, two honours. If so, B has a trump too many, and Y must make a trick in trumps, unless B can play the Grand Coup with the three of trumps (see Remark, Trick 5).

B undertrumps his partner, the Grand coup.

and AB win the odd trick.

(A's hand is given above.)

At Trick 5 B can place all the remaining trumps; hence he undertrumps his partner at Trick 10. Though his play is very good, A's coup in trumping with the four, so as to render B's coup possible, is entitled to the palm. Hence, A's hand heads the example.

At Trick 9, Z ought to lead knave of spades, on which Y should discard eight of clubs, when YZ win the game.