Hoyle's Games Modernized Part 22

DUMMY

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:--

1. Dummy deals at the commencement of each rubber.

2. Dummy is not liable to the penalty for a revoke, as his adversaries see his cards. Should he revoke, and the error not be discovered until the trick is turned and quitted, it stands good. If Dummy's partner revokes, he is liable to the usual penalties. {185}

3. There is no misdeal.

4. Dummy being blind and deaf, his partner is not liable to any penalty for an error whence he can gain no advantage. Thus he may expose some or all of his cards, or declare that he has the game or trick, &c., without incurring any penalty; if, however, he lead from Dummy's hand when he should lead from his own, or _vice versa_, a suit may be called from the hand which ought to have led.

DOUBLE DUMMY

Is played by two players, each having a Dummy or exposed hand for his partner.

The Laws of the game do not differ from those of Dummy Whist.

HOW TO LEARN WHIST, AND TO BECOME A GOOD PLAYER.

Whist is a game that has been played during so many years, and has occupied the attention of so many clear-headed men, that certain principles of play have been established from long experience, as those best suited to gain success.

The first step towards becoming a good whist-player is to learn the leads; then what to play second and third in hand. These systems of play ought to be so thoroughly known that there is never a moment's hesitation as to the card to lead, or the card to play second or third in hand.

The leads, &c., are merely what we may term {186} the mechanical portions of the game, and do not require any reasoning on the part of the player.

They have already been reasoned out by long and continued investigation.

Immediately other cards have been played by the adversaries and the partner, then reason and judgment come in, so as to draw inferences from the cards played by each individual.

The object of a lead is--first, to secure tricks; secondly, to give your partner as much information as is desirable of the cards which you possess in the suit you have led. You may give him a very fair idea of the numerical strength or of the actual strength in high or court cards. It is always correct to a.s.sume that a partner, if even a moderately good player, leads from his strongest suit. Then comes the question, Of what does this suit consist? By the card led, an approximate idea is conveyed. By the cards played by the other players compared with those held in one's own hand, a more accurate opinion may be formed. A second round of the same suit often indicates exactly the cards held by the original leader. Such a conclusion, however, could be formed only when the original leader is a whist-player, and is not one of those persons who lead at random, according as their fancy at the time impels them.

In considering the lead, the selection, as a general rule, should be from the strongest suit, and the strongest suit is that consisting of the greatest number of cards. Thus five spades, consisting of knave, nine, eight, four, and two, is a stronger suit than is another consisting of king, queen, and one small card.

What card to lead of the strong suit is the next question, one object being to convey to the partner as much useful information as is possible. Two {187} forms of lead now come under consideration, viz., first, when the cards led are winning cards of the suit; second, when the cards led are not winning cards. Winning cards will first be spoken of.

Suppose a player led the ace of clubs. His partner would at once be justified in concluding that the original leader did not hold the king of that suit; and if this ace were trumped by the fourth player, the partner would place the king in the hand of the original second player. If, however, the king had been led originally, and had been similarly trumped, it would be right to conclude that the ace was in the hand of the original leader.

Again, if the king of a suit were led, and won the trick, and the queen were led, and also won, the ace would be placed in the hand of the original leader. If, however, the king had been led originally, and followed by the ace, then the queen would be placed by the leader's partner in the hand of one of the adversaries.

These simple cases serve to show the general principle on which leads should be made. The first lead gives a preliminary indication; the second lead reveals the whole or nearly the whole secret.

This being the case, it is most remarkable to find that there are certain persons at the present time who claim to be reasonable, and to play scientific Whist, who yet strongly object to any extension of the principles of leads beyond those to which they have been accustomed. These objectors admit that to lead the king, with ace, king, is correct play, as the lead of the king indicates that the leader holds the ace also. They stop, however, at a certain point, and a.s.sert that to lead the penultimate from {188} a suit of five, an anti-penultimate from a suit of six, to call for trumps, or to echo to a partner's lead of trumps, is like kicking your partner under the table. Why is it not like kicking your partner under the table to lead the king, with ace, king, instead of leading the ace? The cases are exactly similar, and are based on the same principles of play.

The whist-player who wishes to hold his own with modern players _must_ learn the modern leads. These leads are based on reason, and convey, by each card, intimation to an intelligent partner as regards the number and strength of the suit from which the card was originally led.

As one among many examples of the information conveyed by a lead, the following may be given:--

My partner being a good player, I conclude he leads from his strongest suit. He is original leader, and leads the seven of spades, hearts being trumps.

In my hand there are the ace, queen, five, and two of spades.

The second player plays the three; I play the queen; fourth player plays the six.

What do these cards mean?

My right adversary is not asking for trumps, because asking for trumps is playing an unnecessarily high card (as will be fully explained further on); and the two of spades being in my own hand, the three is the next lowest card. The three may be a single card, but single cards are the exception oftener than the rule.

Having won with the queen, I return the ace of spades. The second player plays the eight, my partner plays the four, and the fourth player plays the ten. {189}

By these two rounds of spades I have obtained a considerable amount of information. My partner led the seven, and his four dropped to my ace on the second round. He therefore led the penultimate of a five suit; and he holds three more spades which I can name--that is, the king, knave, and nine. Neither of the adversaries holds another spade, because, as there are two more in my hand, three more in my partner's, and eight spades played, the thirteen of the suit are accounted for. To lead another spade, therefore, would be folly, as one adversary would make a small trump, and the other would discard a worthless card of another suit.

My partner also would know that--as the eight was played by one adversary, and the ten by the other, whilst he held king, knave, and nine--the two other spades were in my hand.

When, then, my partner obtained the lead, he would avoid playing his king of spades, unless all the trumps were out, or he wished to force out the best trump.

A bad player distinguishes himself by not noticing such details as those given above, and then, by jumping at erroneous conclusions, comes to utter grief. A bad player would not perceive why a third round of spades was not led by his partner, and would almost to a certainty imagine that it must be because his partner held no more. At the very first opportunity, therefore, he would lead his king of spades, and then discover that the second player trumped with the two, and the fourth player discarded from another suit.

Now, how was this information obtained? It was obtained by the original leader starting from a {190} penultimate, or lowest card but one of a five suit. If this original leader had led the lowest card his partner could not have obtained the information described above.

To lead, therefore, the correct card, according to the number and strength of a suit, is one of the first and most important items connected with Whist.

In the most modern game of Whist the number of conventional leads has been considerably increased; and, although only a few of the more advanced players practise these at the present time, those who do so must be reckoned with. It is, therefore, necessary for a player to ascertain the amount of knowledge of the game possessed and practised by his partner, otherwise he may be giving information as to the cards in his hand which his partner fails to comprehend, but which is at once understood by the adversaries.

If the chance be offered, the game of the players who are playing should be watched, so as to ascertain whether they are modern or old-fashioned players. This fact can be discovered by noting the cards they lead. When joining a rubber with strangers, it is uncertain what style of game they play, and the first hand is played under great disadvantage. After two or three hands have been played, a partner's strength or weakness ought to be correctly estimated.

If you find that your partner does not understand the scientific game, it is worse than useless to attempt to play first-cla.s.s Whist with him. He fails to perceive the information you give him, or draws erroneous conclusions from such information, and does the very thing he ought not to do. With a bad partner and {191} strong adversaries, it is more likely that success will be gained by playing incorrect cards than by playing those which, with a good partner, would have been played.

Having thus, we hope, established the importance of the lead, we proceed to discuss the subject in detail.

LEADS.

In selecting a card for a first and original lead, this card should be from the longest suit as a rule. _Numerical_ strength is the kind of strength which is most to be considered. Thus a suit of five, though headed by a ten, is a better suit than one containing ace, king, and one small card.

When a suit is headed by high court cards, the leads are different from those which should be adopted when the highest card in the suit is a ten or a single court card (not the ace). In the case of a long suit not headed by the ace, and with only one court card, _the lead should be the fourth best card of the suit_, that is, the fourth card counting from the top downwards.

When the suit from which a lead has to be selected is of three cards only, the highest card of this suit should be led, unless such highest card be ace, king, or queen; then lead the smallest. It frequently happens that the leader holds four small trumps, and an honour, say king or ace, has been turned up to his right. The original leader cannot lead from his numerically strongest suit, which is trumps, up to this honour; he must therefore open a weak suit, and he should select that in which he is strongest.

One of the first principles in leads is to lead through {192} the strong up to the weak. At the first lead it is impossible to tell where the strength and where the weakness may be, except in trumps when an honour is turned up. After the first round of a suit, a fair idea may be formed as to the position of the strength and weakness.

When the original leader possesses two or more honours in a suit, the order in which these are led conveys important information to an intelligent partner. The second lead of the same suit will in some cases indicate the number of cards in the suit, from which the original card was played. For example, original leader plays knave of spades, which wins the trick. He follows with king of spades. The leader's partner now knows (see Table of Leads, _post_) that the original lead was from king, queen, knave, and at least two small spades; because leading knave, then king, shows five at least in the suit. If the leader held only four spades, he would have commenced with the king.

Another piece of valuable information may be gained by the lead of the knave from king, queen, knave, and two others, which is as follows. The leader's partner, if a good player, and holding the ace and one other spade only, will take his partner's knave with the ace, and will then return the small spade. He plays this ace to "unblock," or get out of the way of his partner. If, however, he does not play his ace on the knave, but does play it on the king, it may be a.s.sumed that he holds a third spade, and played his ace to prevent blocking his partner's suit. Only a very feeble player, with ace and one other, would fail to play this ace on the original lead of knave. {193}

The leader will now know whether either adversary holds another spade. If he led from six spades, neither adversary holds a spade. If he led from five, one adversary may hold a spade, unless his partner originally held four; and, from the cards that fell from his partner's hand, he can tell whether three or four were originally held. The partner knows that, as he held, say, three originally, and the original leader showed five, one of the adversaries, after two rounds of the suit, cannot hold a spade. This is one among numerous cases proving the advantage of informing a partner, by the lead, of the number of cards in the suit from which the original lead was made. When the accepted leads are known and practised, a game of Whist proceeds like a well-oiled machine, the intelligence being employed to take advantage of the information given. When the leads are not known, and incorrect cards are played, there are perpetual catastrophes, losses and surprises, which usually culminate in losing a rubber which ought to have been won.

After the Laws of the game have been learnt, the next proceeding is to learn the leads. No man can ever hope to be more than a very indifferent player who does not know the leads; yet, from a long Whist experience, it can be stated that at least one-third of those who have played the game of Whist, probably during twenty or more years, have never become familiar with them.