PART II.

HANDS 156

APPENDIX A.

AMERICAN LEADS 281

APPENDIX B.

THE PLAIN-SUIT ECHO 287

APPENDIX C.

ON THE ORIGINAL LEAD OF KING 289

THE LAWS OF WHIST.

BY PERMISSION, _VERBATIM_ FROM THE CLUB CODE.

THE FOOT NOTES ARE ADDED BY THE AUTHOR.

THE RUBBER.

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.

SCORING.

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--

I. The four honours, they score four points. II. Any three honours, they score two points. III. Only two honours, they do not score.

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--

I. A treble, or game of three points, when their adversaries have not scored.

II. A double, or game of two points, when their adversaries have scored less than three.

III. A single, or game of one point, when their adversaries have scored three, or four.

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.

CUTTING.

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.

FORMATION OF TABLE.

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.

CUTTING CARDS OF EQUAL VALUE.

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]

CUTTING OUT.

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.

ENTRY AND RE-ENTRY.

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.

SHUFFLING.

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.

THE DEAL.

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.

A NEW DEAL.

37. There must be a new deal[11]--

I. If, during a deal, or during the play of a hand, the pack be proved incorrect or imperfect.

II. If any card, excepting the last, be faced in the pack.

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.

A MISDEAL.

43. A misdeal loses the deal.[12]

44. It is a misdeal[13]--

I. Unless the cards are dealt into four packets, one at a time in regular rotation, beginning with the player to the dealer's left.

II. Should the dealer place the last (_i.e._, the trump) card, face downwards, on his own, or any other pack.

III. Should the trump card not come in its regular order to the dealer; but he does not lose his deal if the pack be proved imperfect.

IV. Should a player have fourteen[14] cards, and either of the other three less than thirteen.[15]

V. Should the dealer, under an impression that he has made a mistake, either count the cards on the table, or the remainder of the pack.

VI. Should the dealer deal two cards at once, or two cards to the same hand, and then deal a third; but if, prior to dealing that third card, the dealer can, by altering the position of one card only, rectify such error, he may do so, except as provided by the second paragraph of this Law.

VII. Should the dealer omit to have the pack cut to him, and the adversaries discover the error, prior to the trump card being turned up, and before looking at their cards, but not after having done so.

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.

THE TRUMP CARD.

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.

CARDS LIABLE TO BE CALLED.

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:--

I. Two or more cards played at once.[23]

II. Any card dropped with its face upwards, or in any way exposed on or above the table, even though snatched up so quickly that no one can name it.

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.

CARDS PLAYED IN ERROR, OR NOT PLAYED TO A TRICK.

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.

THE REVOKE.

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:--

I. Is at the option of the adversaries, who, at the end of the hand, may either take three tricks from the revoking player[32]--or deduct three points from his score--or add three to their own score;

II. Can be claimed for as many revokes as occur during the hand;

III. Is applicable only to the score of the game in which it occurs;

IV. Cannot be divided, i.e., a player cannot add one or two to his own score and deduct one or two from the revoking player;

V. Takes precedence of every other score, _e.g._,--The claimants two--their opponents nothing--the former add three to their score--and thereby win a treble game, even should the latter have made thirteen tricks, and held four honours.

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.)

CALLING FOR NEW CARDS.

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.

GENERAL RULES.

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.

This rule does not apply in exacting the penalties for a revoke; partners have then a right to consult.

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.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Vide_ Law 72.

[2] _e.g._ If a single is scored by mistake for a double or treble, or _vice versâ_.

[3] In cutting for partners.

[4] _Example._ A three, two sixes, and a knave are cut. The two sixes cut again, and the lowest plays with the three. Suppose at the second cut, the two sixes cut a king and a queen, the queen plays with the three.

If at the second cut a lower card than the three is cut, the three still retains its privileges as original low, and has the deal and choice of cards and seats.

[5] _Example._ Three aces and a two are cut. The three aces cut again. The two is the original high, and plays with the highest of the next cut.

Suppose at the second cut, two more twos and a king are drawn. The king plays with the original two, and the other pair of twos cut again for deal.

Suppose instead, the second cut to consist of an ace and two knaves. The two knaves cut again, and the highest plays with the two.

[6] _i.e._, his prior right.

[7] And last in the room (_vide_ Law 16).

[8] _Vide_ Law 34.

[9] _Vide_ Law 37.

[10] After the two packets have been re-united, Law 38 comes into operation.

[11] _i.e._, the same dealer must deal again. _Vide_ also Laws 47 and 50.

[12] Except as provided in Laws 45 and 50.

[13] _Vide_ also Law 36.

[14] Or more.

[15] The pack being perfect. _Vide_ Law 47.

[16] _i.e._, until after he has played to the first trick.

[17] _Vide_ also Law 70, and Law 44, paragraph iv.

[18] It is not usual to call the trump card if left on the table.

[19] Any one may inquire what the trump suit is, at any time.

[20] In the manner described in Law 55.

[21] Face upwards.

[22] Detached cards (_i.e._, cards taken out of the hand but not dropped face upwards on the table, or dropped face downwards on the table), are only liable to be called, if named; _vide_ Law 60.

[23] If two or more cards are played at once, the adversaries have a right to call which they please to the trick in course of play, and afterwards to call the others.

[24] And then lead without waiting for his partner to play.

[25] Without waiting for his partner to play.

[26] _i.e._, the first time that side obtains the lead.

[27] _i.e._, the penalty of calling a suit must be exacted from whichever of them next first obtains the lead. It follows that if the player who leads out of turn is the partner of the person who ought to have led, and a suit is called, it must be called at once from the right leader. If he is allowed to play as he pleases, the only penalty that remains is to call the card erroneously led.

[28] _i.e._, whichever of them next first has the lead.

[29] At every trick.

[30] _Vide_ also Law 46.

[31] _Vide_ also Law 61.

[32] And add them to their own.

[33] _Vide_ Law 77.

[34] In the manner prescribed in Law 72.

[35] To demand any penalty.

[36] _i.e._, refrain from winning.

ETIQUETTE OF WHIST.

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.

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:--

I. Dummy deals at the commencement of each rubber.

II. Dummy is not liable to the penalty for a revoke, as his adversaries see his cards: should he[39] revoke and the error not be discovered until the trick is turned and quitted, it stands good.[40]

III. 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 may 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 versâ_, 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 Dummy Whist, except in the following special law: There is no misdeal, as the deal is a disadvantage.

FOOTNOTES:

[37] The question "Who dealt?" is irregular, and if asked should not be answered.

[38] Or who asks what the trump suit is.

[39] _i.e._ Dummy's hand. If Dummy's partner revokes, he is liable to the usual penalties.

[40] And the hand proceeds as though the revoke had not been discovered.

CASES AND DECISIONS.

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.

CASE I.

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.

CASE II.

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."

CASE III.

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.

CASE IV.

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.

CASE V.

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.

CASE VI.

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.

CASE VII.

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).

CASE VIII.

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.

CASE IX.

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.

CASE X.

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.

CASE XI.

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.

WHIST.

HISTORICAL.

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.

"And where you are wont to celebrate Christmass in playing at Cards, I intend, with God's grace, to deal unto you Christ's Cards, wherein you shall perceive Christ's Rule. The game that we play at shall be the Triumph, which, if it be well played at, he that dealeth shall win; the Players shall likewise win, and the standers and lookers upon shall do the same. * * * You must mark also, that the Triumph must apply to fetch home unto him all the other Cards, whatsoever suit they be of. * * * Then further we must say to ourselves, 'What requireth Christ of a Christian man?' Now turn up your Trump, your Heart (Hearts is Trump, as I said before) and cast your Trump, your Heart, on this card."

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:--

"CHAT. What diccon: come nere, ye be no straunger, We be fast set at trumpe man, hard by the fyre, Thou shalt set on the king, if thou come a litte nyer. * * * * * * * Come nether, Dol, Dol, sit downe and play this game, And as thou sawest me do, see thou do even the same There is 5. trumps beside the Queene, yᵉ hindmost yᵘ shalt finde her Take hede of Sim glover's wife, she hath an eie behind her."

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).

"ANT. My good knave, Eros, now thy Captain is Even such a body; here am I Antony; Yet cannot hold this visible shape, my _knave_. I made these wars for Egypt; and the _Queen_,-- Whose _heart_ I thought I had, for she had mine; Which, whilst it was mine, had annex'd unto 't A million more, now lost,--she, Eros, has _Packed cards_ with Cæsar, and _false-played_ my glory Unto an enemy's _triumph_."

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:--

"At Ruff and Honours, by some called Slamm, you have in the Pack all the Deuces, and the reason is, because four playing having dealt twelve a piece, there are four left for the Stock, the uppermost whereof is turn'd up, and that is Trumps, he that hath the Ace of that Ruffs; that is, he takes in those four Cards, and lays out four others in their lieu; the four Honours are the Ace, King, Queen, and Knave; he that hath three Honours in his own hand, his partner not having the fourth sets up Eight by Cards, that is two tricks; if he hath all four, then Sixteen, that is four tricks; it is all one if two Partners make them three or four between them, as if one had them. If the Honours are equally divided among the Gamesters of each side, then they say Honours are split. If either side are at Eight Groats he hath the benefit of calling Can-ye, if he hath two Honours in his hand, and if the other answers one, the Game is up, which is nine in all, but if he hath more than two he shows them, and then it is one and the same thing; but it he forgets to call after playing a trick, he loseth the advantage of Can-ye for that deal.

"All Cards are of value as they are superiour one to another, as a Ten wins a Nine if not Trumps, so a Queen, a Knave in like manner; but the least Trump will win the highest Card of any other Card [suit]; where note the Ace is the highest."

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 Prodigals estate, like to a flux. The Mercer, Draper, and the Silkman sucks: * * * * * * * He flings his money free with carelessnesse: At Novum, Mumchance, mischance, (chuse ye which) At One and Thirty, or at Poore and rich, Ruffe, slam, Trump, nody, whisk, hole, Sant, New-cut."

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:--

"But what was this? A Game at Whist Unto our _Plowden-Canonist_."

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)--

"Some Squire, perhaps, you take delight to rack, Whose game is Whisk, whose treat a toast in sack."

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

"Perhaps a while, amusive, thoughtful Whisk Walks gentle round, beneath a cloud of smoak, Wreath'd, fragrant, from the pipe."

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."

"Who will believe that Man could e'er exist, Who spent near half an Age in studying _Whist_? Grew gray with Calculation--Labour hard! As if Life's Business center'd in a Card? That such there is, let me to those appeal, Who with such liberal Hands reward his Zeal. Lo! _Whist_ he makes a science, and our Peers Deign to turn _School Boys_ in their riper Years."

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.

"_Lurchum._ Thou knowest we have the Honour to be admitted into the best Company, which neither our Birth nor Fortunes entitle us to, merely for our Reputation as good Whist-Players.

_Shuffle._ Very well!

_Lurch._ But if this damn'd Book of the Professor's answers, as he pretends, to put Players more upon a Par, what will avail our superior Skill in the Game? We are undone to all Intents and Purposes. * * * We must bid adieu to _White's_, _George's_, _Brown's_, and all the polite Assemblies about Town, and that's enough to make a Man mad instead of thoughtful.

_Shuf._ Damn him, I say,--Could he find no other Employment for forty Years together, than to study how to circumvent younger Brothers, and such as us, who live by our Wits? A man that discovers the Secrets of any Profession deserves to be sacrificed, and I would be the first, _Lurchum_, to cut the Professor's Throat for what he has done, but that I think I have pretty well defeated the malevolent Effect of his fine-spun Calculations.

_Lurch._ As how, dear _Shuffle_? Thou revivest me.

_Shuf._ I must confess the Publication of his Treatise gave me at first some slight Alarm; but I did not, like thee, _Lurchum_, indulge in melancholy desponding Thoughts: On the contrary, I called up my Indignation to my Assistance, and have ever since been working upon a private Treatise on _Signs_ at _Whist_, by way of counter Treatise to his, and which, if I mistake not, totally overthrows his System."

On the other hand, the gentlemen are in raptures.

"Sir _Calculation Puzzle._ The progress your Lordship has made for the time you have study'd under the Professor is wonderful.--Pray, has your Lordship seen the dear Man to-day?

Lord _Slim_. O yes.--His Grace sate him down at my House, and I have just lent him my Chariot into the City.--How do you like the last edition of his Treatise with the Appendix,[41] Sir _Calculation_? I mean that sign'd with his Name.[42]

Sir _Cal._ O Gad, my Lord, there never was so excellent a Book printed.--I'm quite in Raptures with it--I will eat with it--sleep with it--go to Court with it--go to Parliament with it--go to Church with it.--I pronounce it the Gospel of Whist-Players; and the Laws of the Game ought to be wrote in golden Letters, and hung up in Coffee-houses, as much as the Ten Commandments in Parish Churches.

Sir _John Medium_. Ha! Ha! Ha! You speak of the Book with the Zeal of a primitive Father.

Sir _Cal._ Not half enough, Sir _John_--the Calculations[43] are so exact! * * * his Observations[44] are quite masterly! his Rules[45] so comprehensive! his Cautions[46] so judicious! There are such Variety of Cases[47] in his Treatise, and the Principles are so new, I want Words to express the Author, and can look on him in no other Light than as a second _Newton_."

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

"Sir _John_. 'Twas by some such laudable Practices, I suppose, that you suffered in your last Affair with Lurchum.

Sir _Cal._ O Gad, No, Sir _John_--Never any thing was fairer, nor was ever any thing so critical.--We were nine all. The adverse Party had 3, and we had 4 Tricks. All the Trumps were out. I had Queen and two small Clubs, with the Lead. Let me see--It was about 222 and 3 Halves to--'gad. I forgot how many--that my Partner had the Ace and King--let me recollect--ay--that he had one only was about 31 to 26.--That he had not both of them 17 to 2,--and that he had not one, or both, or neither, some 25 to 32.--So I, according to the Judgment of the Game, led a Club, my Partner takes it with the King. Then it was exactly 481 for _us_ to 222 against _them_. He returns the same Suit; I win it with my Queen, and return it again; but the Devil take that _Lurchum_, by passing his Ace twice, he took the Trick, and having 2 more Clubs and a 13th Card, I gad, all was over.--But they both allow'd I play'd admirably well for all that."

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.

"_Young Jobber_ [A pupil of the Professor's]. Dear, Mr. _Professor_, I can never repay you.--You have given me such an Insight by this Visit, I am quite another Thing--I find I knew nothing of the Game before; tho' I can assure you, I have been reckoned a First-rate Player in the City a good while--nay, for that Matter, I make no bad figure at the _Crown_--and don't despair, by your Assistance, but to make one at _White's_ soon."

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--

"WHIST, then, delightful WHIST, my theme shall be, And first I'll try to trace its pedigree, And shew what sage and comprehensive mind Gave to the world a pleasure so refin'd: Then shall the verse its various charms display, Which bear from, ev'ry game the palm away; And, last of all, those rules and maxims tell, Which give the envied pow'r to play it well. But first (for such the mode) some tuneful shade Must be invok'd, the vent'rous Muse to aid. Cremona's poet shall I first address, Who paints with skill the mimic war of chess, And India's art in Roman accents sings; Or him who soars on far sublimer wings, Belinda's bard, who taught his liquid lay At Ombre's studious game so well to play? But why thus vainly hesitates the Muse, In idle doubt, what guardian pow'r to chuse? What pow'r so well can aid her daring toil, As the bright spirit of immortal Hoyle? By whose enlighten'd efforts Whist became A sober, serious, scientific game; To whose unwearied pains, while here below, The great, th' important privilege we owe, That random strokes disgrace our play no more, But skill presides, where all was chance before. Come then, my friend, my teacher, and my guide, Where'er thy shadowy ghost may now reside; Perhaps (for Nature ev'ry change defies, Nor ev'n with death our ruling passion dies) With fond regret it hovers still, unseen, Around the tempting boards array'd in green; Still with delight its fav'rite game regards, And tho' it plays no more o'erlooks the cards. Come then, thou glory of Britannia's isle, On this attempt propitious deign to smile; Let all thy skill th' unerring page inspire, And all thy zeal my raptur'd bosom fire."

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.

FOOTNOTES:

[41] "The author of this treatise did promise if it met with approbation, to make an addition to it by way of Appendix, which he has done accordingly."--_Hoyle._

[42] Authorised as revised and corrected under his own hand.--_Hoyle._

[43] "Calculations for those who will bet the odds on any points of the score," &c.--"Calculations directing with moral certainty, how to play well any hand or game," &c.--_Hoyle._

[44] "Games to be played with certain observations," &c.--_Hoyle._

[45] "Some general rules to be observed," &c.--"Some particular rules to be observed," &c.--_Hoyle._

[46] "A caution not to part with the command of your adversaries' great suit," &c.--_Hoyle._

[47] "With a variety of Cases added in the Appendix."--_Hoyle._