Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/581

Rh WHIST 545 Tlis pretensions to this distinction have already been ex amined. Soon after this (1872) followed the echo of the call for trumps. Calling for trumps, as all whist-players know, is effected by throwing away an unnecessarily high card. When the lower card is subsequently played, a royal invitation is given to the partner to abandon his own game and to lead trumps, there being great strength in the caller s hand. In practice it was found for various reasons (for which manuals must be consulted) to be highly advantage ous for the caller s partner to be able to indicate whether he also had numerical strength in trumps (i.e., a minimum of four). The rule was eventually adopted that the caller s partner with at least four trumps should, if he had an opportunity, call in response, or echo, by also throwing away an unnecessarily high card ; of course, if he had the opportunity, and refrained from echoing, he had less than four trumps. This rule of play was not appreciated at the time; but now (1888) it has the adherence of all thoughtful players. Contemporaneously with the echo, the lead of the pen ultimate card from suits of five or more cards was strenu ously advocated in some quarters, and as strenuously opposed in others. Up to this date it had been the general practice, when leading a low card from a strong suit, to prefer the lowest card of the suit, irrespective of the number held. But some acute players departed from this rule when they held an intermediate sequence of three cards. Thus, with king, ten, nine, eight, two (intermediate sequence of ten, nine, eight), they would lead the eight in preference to the two, as a card of protection, in case the partner should happen to be very weak in the suit, when the eight must force an honour, whereas the two might enable the opponent to win the first trick with a six or a seven. Equally acute partners soon observed that, when a strong-suit player began with, say, an eight, and afterwards played a small card, the card must have been from a suit of at least five cards. As soon as this inference was established, the acute leader argued that, if lie could show number in his strong suit (an important exhibition in modern whist), he need not confine this exhibition to those suits only in which he held an inter mediate sequence. He contended that the right play is to lead the lowest but one (or the penultimate) from all suits containing five or more cards, with which the less advanced player would begin by leading the lowest. Then ensued the grand battle of the penultimate. The old players regarded it with the same &quot;horror&quot; as they had formerly displayed with respect to the French school, and even went so far as to stigmatize it as a private under standing and as cheating. The next stock objection raised was that it was an innovation. These feeble arguments were soon disposed of. The method was accessible to every one through the medium of the press; and, as Clay (Short Whist, 1864) rightly observes, &quot;It is fair to give your partner any intimation which could be given, if the cards were placed on the table, each exactly in the same manner as the others, by a machine, the players being out of sight and hearing each of the others.&quot; The more genuine stric tures were that penultimate leads complicate the game, that they give no advantage to the players, and that they simulate leads from weak suits (from which the highest is led). It is very doubtful whether penultimate leads do complicate the game. But, admitting for the sake of argu ment that they do, it is no objection to an intellectual pastime that it exercises the brains of the players. The question whether those who practise penultimate leads reap any advantage therefrom is one which can only be determined by experience. The best test is the habit of those who play for a stake. They all hope to win ; they are not likely to persist obstinately in a practice by which they find they gain nothing ; and at the present moment (1888) there is scarcely a player of any ability who de liberately rejects the penultimate lead when he has a partner capable of understanding it. Hence it may be inferred that the experience of some sixteen years has resulted in a decided feeling that penultimate leads are on the whole advantageous to those who practise them. The simulation of a lead from a weak suit has no locus standi if it is borne in mind that original leads are contemplated, and that the original lead of all good players is from a strong suit. James Clay, the greatest player of his day, was at first opposed to penultimate leads. When he had considered the full arguments for and against them, he &quot;put them to the test of his individual experience, acknow ledged their value, and did not hesitate to give his adhesion to them.&quot; * The consideration of the proper card to lead from five- card suits naturally led to that of the correct lead from more than five cards, in the case of suits opened with a small card. General Drayson (Art of Practical Whist, 1879) was the first to lay down that six of a suit can be shown by leading the antepenultimate card. Thus, from queen, nine, seven, four, three, two of a suit he advised the lead of the four. General Drayson s proposal did not find favour with many players, though it distinctly follows where the penultimate from five is admitted. Meanwhile, leads from high cards, having regard to the number held in the suit, had not escaped attention. Thus, from suits headed by ace, queen, knave it had always been the custom to lead ace, then queen, irrespective of num ber. The third hand, holding king and small ones, was ex pected to pass the queen. But, if the lead was from five cards or more, and the third hand held king and two small ones, this play often resulted in blocking the leader s strong suit. It was therefore held, after some discussion and tentative play, that with more than four of the suit the leader should proceed with knave after ace, in order to invite his partner to put on king, if it remained singly guarded. From this it follows that a similar distinction should be drawn as to the second lead from queen, knave, ten, according to the number of accompanying small cards. If the lead is from four cards only, queen should be led, then knave ; if from more than four, queen, then ten. These innovations were introduced about 1874-75. It will be observed that the original idea in choosing a penulti mate or antepenultimate card was to protect the suit, and that the original idea in choosing the higher or lower of two high indifferent cards was to give the partner the option of unblocking. Behind this there was seen to lie the collateral advantage of showing number. Hence these rules of play were frequently resorted to merely for the purpose of telling whether four or more than four cards of the suit selected to lead from were present in the hand of the original leader. So far the indicated method, sound enough in itself, amounted only to the enunciation of modified rules of play. It yet remained for some one to propound a constant method of treating all leads, and to classify the isolated rules so as to render it possible to lay down general principles. This was accomplished in 1883-84 by Nicholas Browse Trist of New Orleans, U.S.A. ; and hence the method of leading reduced to form by him is known by the name of American leads. American leads propose a systematic course of play when opening and continuing the lead from the strong suit. First, with regard to a low card led. When you open a strong suit with a low card, lead your fourth best. When opening a four-card suit with a low card, the lowest, which is the fourth best, is the card selected. When opening a five-card suit with MPrefaciTby the editors&quot; to&quot; Ci&y a Short IVhist, 1881. XXIV. 69 Ante- penulti- Ameri- ca