A‘ . LETTER _ -- ¢MNDISH>.-


_ lésl 'Ahnericeil} Lead
ei'lllesfifqqxus was prépam Wf‘After' TALLEYRA'XD.-
-‘;:*1P1é.yii1"g Cards? of the best'qu‘ailityQ Merry Andrews:
Jzgargl‘s‘. ~Qf ‘ thg fourthv Ifbéstjfquality.”—DANBY_ P.- F RY‘
"-(siTrll'Z,-_?Z_'Sqgtjims \fibf the‘ RhilologicalSociety); - “x. v s - ‘ ., - I


,iem 1mm? Qua-la Tmsm)






‘90.;1, JIPATERNOSTER_

















WHIST.
THE
AMERICAN LEAD CONTROVERSY.
BY
“ MERRY ANDREW."
WITH A LETTER BY “GAVENDISH.”

“Vous savez 108 American Leads, jeune homme? Quelle TRIST(e)
vieillesse vous was pre'parez!”—After TALLEYRAND.
“Moguls: Playing Cards of the best quality. Merry Andrews:
Playing Cards of the fourth [best] quality.”—DANBY P. FRY
(Transactions of the Philological Society.)

L 0N D ON:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENOH, & (30., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1885.
LONDON. -_
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
smusonn STREET AND cmuum (moss.
‘230%, in").
PREFACE
-_+-_
FOR some months past a strong controversy has been
raging in the Whist World as to the advisability of the
adoption or rejection of the system of Leading at VVhist
known as
AMERICAN LEADS.
In the discussion, some of the most prominent writers on
Whist have taken part.
It has occurred to me that a whist debate, in which such
authorities as “Cavendish,” “Mogul,” “N. B. T.,”
“Quisquis,” Mr. F. H. Lewis and General Drayson have
expressed their opinions, is worthy of more notice than it
can receive in the columns of even so widely circulated a
newspaper as The Field. I have therefore collected the
opinions of these gentlemen; and as I have ‘taken part
(only as a learner), in the inquiry, have included my own
contributions, and have also taken the liberty of adding
some copulative remarks, but with hesitation, considering
the company in which I find myself.
In order to keep within bounds, I have found it necessary
to greatly curtail the various views expressed. In so acting,
I trust I have not done injustice to any of the writers. I
have endeavoured to express their opinions fairly, without
resorting to long quotations.
MERRY ANDREW.
139718 B 2
LONDON, June, 1885.
WHIST.
THE AMERICAN LEAD GONTROVERSY.
THE system of leading at whist introduced by “ N. B. T.”
(Nicholas Browse Trist), and supported by “ Cavendish,”
known by the name of AMERICAN LEADS, has found some
strong opponents and some equally powerful supporters.
This is not to be wondered at, seeing how slow whist players
are to approve what are called “innovations ” on their
accustomed way of playing the game.
The “innovations,” however, proposed by American
Leads, are not very startling. They are as under :—
1. When you open a strong suit with a low card, lead
your fourth-best, cg.—


2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Best. Best. Best. Best. Best. Best. 820.
Kg. 10 9 6
Kg. 10 9 6 5 {i
a o
3 Kg. 10 9 6 5 4 '5
e "2.
Kg. 10 9 6 5 4 3 ,3
Kg. 10 9 6 &c. &c. &c., &c.


(6)
2. When you open a strong suit with‘ a high card, and
then lead a low card, next lead your original fourth-best,

6.9.—
Original
2nd 3rd 5th 6th
Best‘ Best. Best. gist. Best. ‘Best. 8m‘
Kg Q11. 9 7 g’: E: '€ £
5 Kg. Qn. 9 "' 5 1:‘ '2
2 ".2 Ps 3
L“ I’g. Q11. 9 7 5 2 PG .2“ g
3; c3 '5
Kg. Qn. 9 7 &c. &c. &c ,4







3. WVhen you open a strong suit with a high card, and
then lead another high card, if you have two high indifferent
cards still in hand, lead the higher of the indifferent cards
when you held but four of the suit originally, the lower
when you held more than four, 6.9.—





1st 2nd
Lead. Lead.
Ace, qn., knv., one small.. Ace Qn.
5 Ace, qn., knv., two small .. Ace Knv.
pg Ace, qn., knv., more than two small Ace Knv.
or,
1st 2nd
Lead. Lead.
Qn., knv., 10, one small .. Qn. Knv.
g Qn., knv., 10, two small .. Qn. ~ 10
{:4 Qn., knv., 10, more than two small Qn. 10



(7)
It would be beyond the province of this account of the
“ Controversy ” to enter into detailed reasons for and against
the adoption of the above (and similar) leads. Moreover,
as we are promised shortly a full explanation of them in
Whist Developments by “ Cavendish,” in which the subject
must of necessity be skilfully treated, anything more than
a mere statement of the case here would be superfluous—if
not presumptuous.
Some very strong players, among them “ Mogul,” are of
opinion that penultimates (which are included in American
Leads), and that the American system generally, are to be
condemned, with the exception of the third branch, where
a high card is followed by a high card.
“Mogul” (The Field, Dec. 20, 1884), says that arbitrary
signals substitute observation for reasoning, and lower the
character of the game of whist.
He then examines the argument of “ Cavendish ” that,
inasmuch as certain cards ought to be played in a particular
way, as the best means of trick-making and of giving
information, therefore, certain other cards ought to be
played in the same way, under analogous circumstances
with the sole object of giving information.
On this “ Mogul” observes that “ Cavendish ” leaves out
of consideration whether information, so given, may not be
of more use to the adversary’s than to the leader’s partner.
And as the object of the whist-player is to make tricks, the
desire to give information ought only to influence the play
when giving information conduces totrick-making. Hence,
no rule, having as its sole object the giving of information,
should be adopted without proof that the information will
be more advantageous to the leader’s partner than to the
opponents. ‘
(8)
“ Mogul” allows that information of strength may, as a
rule, be more easily taken advantage of by a partner than
by an adversary; and he remarks that it is evident the
more definite and exact the information, the more useful it
must be.
“ Mogul” then goes on to argue that penultimate leads
(which are but a fraction of American Leads), do not give
any indication of the actual value of the cards held. They
only give information as to length of suit; and the mere
declaration of length (ale. of the possession of more than
four cards of a suit), is not a declaration of strength, irre-
spective of the probability of bringing in the suit.
This seems to “ Mogul” so clear that he- marvels at
American Leads, 71.6. at the extension of the penultimate
rule to a rule of leading the fourth-best, so as to tell the
table that the lead was from six or more cards. In his
opinion, information thus given is more likely to prove
beneficial on the balance to the adversaries than to the
leader’s partner. At all events, that is his experience of
penultimate leads, notwithstanding many who have adopted
penultimate (and American) leads consider the contrary.
Players whose practice is regulated by arbitrary rules
have, “‘ Mogul ” believes, but one idea, to give information
(for which “ Cavendish ” has a “ veritable craze ”), without
regard to the uses their adversaries can make of it, and to
gather information without any notion ‘of how best to
use it.
With all respect to “Mogul” it may be answered that
one great object of American Leads is to afford “definite
and exact ” information to the leader’s partner. Hence his
arguments against the imperfect form of the American
scheme, as exhibited by penultimate leads, falls through.
(9)
“ Mogul’s ” assertion that length is not by itself strength,
might also be challenged. “ Cavendish ” says, five is great
numerical strength, and that, in leading, numerical strength
is the principal point to look to. (See ‘ Cavendish on
Whist.’ “ The first Hand or Lead”)
“ Mogul’s ” remark respecting players who gather in‘
formation without any notion how to use it, just amounts to
this, that bad players do not play so well as good ones.
On the other points raised by “ Mogul,” “ Cavendish,” in
The Field of January 10, 1885, replies as below :—
He denies that modern rules of play are “ arbitrary,” and
asserts, that all information-giving rules of whist play are
dictated by the principle of uniformity. He quotes Dr.
Pole’s Philosophy of Whist in illustration, as follows :—-
“ Suppose a king is led, and I hold the four and five of that
suit. It is immaterial on grounds of general expediency
which I play. ‘What am I to do? The answer is dictated
by common sense. It would be most inexpedient that I
should exercise caprice.”
“ Cavendish” states it as his view that when a rule of play
which helps to make tricks is found, by experience, also to
convey information (which he conceives to be an advantage),
the same rule should be followed with all similar combi-
nations, whether following the rule helps to win tricks or
not, in order to make use of the incidental and collateral
advantage of conveying information in consequence of
uniformity of play.
The question whether or not it ‘is more advantageous to
convey information to partners, which may also be given to-
the adversaries, “ Cavendish ” considers can only be answered
empirically. His personal experience is precisely contrary
to that of “Mogul”: all the best players he has ever ,4 \
B’S’ " 'i'
)' 3‘ J
33.5.1“
.)
I, \
(10)
met obstinately persist in trying to give information of
strength to good partners, and, as he imagines, they all
want to win. He is surprised that “ Mogul” has found the
penultimate disadvantageous; if that is due to the imperfect
information afforded by penultimate leads, he claims to have
“Mogul” on his side, as regards the American Lead of
“ fourth-best,” as that much more frequently indicates the
“ actual value of the cards,” which is what “ Mogul” wishes.
He thinks “ Mogul” is in a minority, and that, until it is
shown the information given by American Leads (which
includes penultimates), is more prejudicial to the leader and
his partner than to the adversaries, he will continue to differ
from “ Mogul.”
It appears then that true point between the “Mogul”
and “ Cavendish ” is now raised. “ Mogul” refuses to adopt
information-giving innovations until they are proved to
conduce to trick-making; “ Cavendish” is for adopting inno-
vations which give information, until they are shown to
conduce to trick-losing.
The perusal of the letters (of which the above gives the
pith), induced “ Merry Andrew ” (the present Writer) to for—
ward his humble opinion to The Field (January 10, 1885).
He there states that he thinks the consequences of giving
precise information have hitherto, as “ Mogul” suggests,
been regarded too much from one side, “N. B. T.” and
“ Cavendish” being possibly swayed by an unconscious bias
in favour of their own theories. He notices that in the
examples given by “ N. B. T.,” where the advantage is with
the American Leader, the third hand is strong in his partner’s
suit ; and, on transferring the strength to the second hand,
' he observes that the advantage is similarly transferred to the
(11)
adversary. Here, then, is almost a demonstration that the
balance of advantage through the information given by these
leads must be pretty equal. And, as no one denies that it
is an advantage to show strength, the question becomes
narrowed to this z—How much strength is it advisable to
show? He recommends that American Leads should not
be adopted until the pros and cons have been threshed out,
and adds that his only desire in writing is to elicit the truth.
The foregoing remarks of “ Merry Andrew’s” only apply
to American Leads when a small card is led. When a high
card is led, and is followed by a high one, all seem to be
agreed that the American System is advantageous.
General Drayson, author of ‘ Practical Whist ’ (The Field,
January 31, 1885), writes to say the defence by “ Cavendish ”
of the play which prefers giving information to practising
deception, is so able that no further remarks need be added.
He records his conviction, from fifteen years’ experience, that
the lead of the “fourth-best ” gives a considerable advantage
to those who practise it, and points out that the American
Lead of “fourth-best ” is only an old friend under a new
name, the lead of the ante-penultimate from a six card suit
(i.e., of the fourth-best) having been suggested by him
years ago.
In The Field of February 7, “ Mogul” returns to the
charge with unchanged views: the following is a summary
of his tenets :—
He opposes the denial of “ Cavendish ” that signals at
whist are “ arbitrary,” and re-asserts they are. He considers
Dr. Pole is mistaken in alleging the reason for playing the
four (holding four and five) to be that he must not exercise
caprice, the real reason being, according to “ Mogul,” that, if
the five is played with the four in hand, the partner is
(12)
deceived, and thinks the player of the five has not got the
four. “Mogul” ‘admits that the main rules of play are
identical in innumerable instances, and thus cause a certain
degree of uniformity. But that, “ Mogul” adds, is an
effect, not a cause; and he asserts there is no principle of
play known as the principle of uniformity, the principle
being merely formulated by “ Cavendish” as a peg whereon
‘to hang the American Lead of “ fourth-best.” Further, the
0mm of‘ the matter is not, as ~“ Cavendish ” alleges, whether
it is more beneficial to give information than to withhold it,
but whether the information given by American Leads is so
necessarily of strength that it ought to be given in every
case. In his judgment, these American Leads, which
“ Cavendish ” is trying to cram down the throats of whist-
players, are open to the objections of being purely artificial,
and of compelling players to give information to the table
which will be, more often than not, information of weakness.
_“Mogul’s ” opinion still is, that American Leads increase
the difficulties of the game, because the more you know
about the cards held by the other players, the more complex
does the problem of the best play become.'
“Mogul” also regards it as a proof of the correctness of
this assertion, that an enormous mass of matter has been
required to be written in order to elucidate the American
system, so much indeed, that he has not attempted to
.master it. , .
Those who oppose “ Mogul ” may, he says, argue that the
increase of difficulty objection is not valid in the case of an
intellectual game. But “Mogul” differs, believing that Whist
,is not a science to be developed as much as possible, but
a pleasant social game, at which it is common to play for
high stakes without giving odds. Hence, the greater the
advantage of skill, the greater the unfairness of playing
without giving odds ,' therefore, he deprccates the proposed
(13)
new system, which would probably only be useful among a
few assorted players “ chock full of science.” ' ‘
,7
.Whether or not “signals at whist, as “ Mogul” calls
uniform modes of play carried out without immediate
regard to trick-making, are “ arbitrary,” depends on what
the writers mean by the word “' arbitrary.” “Arbitrary ”
generally means bound by no law, or depending on no rule.
“ Mogul” says there is no such thing as a law of uniformity
at whist ; “Cavendish” says there is. Hence, no doubt,‘
from “Mogul’s” point of view, certain rules of play are
arbitrary, and from “ Cavendish’s,” the same rules are not
arbitrary.
“ Mogul” seems somewhat to exceed the bounds of “ par-
liamentary ” language in accusing “ Cavendish” of formu-
lating a principle for the purpose of having something to
rely on, and of trying to cram American Leads down’
people’s throats But let that pass. The main point is
this—Is the information given by American Leads, infor-
mation' more often of weakness or of strength? But for
“Mogul’s ” expressed opinion, one would have thought
precise information with respect to the strong suit, must’
be as‘regards strength. However, it is not the object of
these pages to attempt to decide so abstruse a problem.
W hist-players must unravel the tangled skein for them-
. J
selves.
7,
The singular part of “Mogul’s argument now is, that
American Leads ought to be rejected because whist is not to
be developed, because it is unfair-to give an advantage to
skill, which would only be useful to a few players. .
“ Mogul ” here argues (if one may be excused for saying--
so), in a vicious circle. In his former letter he maintained
thatthese Leads should not be adopted because they are
(14)
disadvantageous; now he takes the opposite ground, that
they should not be practised, because they are so advan-
tageous to players who are full of science as to be unfair.
What would be thought of a writer who proposed that
nobody should learn the openings at chess, because book-
chess gives an advantage; or that no one, for a similar
reason, should study the angles on a billiard-table, or
practise the spot-stroke; or that no backgammon-player
should learn the chances on two dice, lest he should have
the best of it, or get up Hoyle’s table of directions for
playing the first throw, for a gammon or a hit? And, with
due deference to “ Mogul,” his arguments amount to a
corresponding proposal that no one shall learn American
Leads for fear he should thereby become one of an assorted
few, and would play better than his neighbours.
Can “ Mogul” seriously contend that A. and B. should -
purposely and habitually play cards which they fancy to be
wrong in order to bring their game down to the level of
the capacities of Y. and Z. ? '
It is a pity that “ Mogul” has introduced the subject of
stakes. Whether stakes are high or low (the latter being
the common case), cannot affect the matter. The doctrine
7
that American Leads are in any sense “ unfair,’ is one
which ought at once to be put down we: et arm/is. Clay is an
authority, whose dicta will hardly be disputed even by
“ Mogul.” Writing of the parallel case of asking for
trumps, Clay says, “ This charge of unfairness can only be
made by those who have thought little of the principles
and practice of whist. It is fair to give your partner any
intimation which could be given if the cards were placed
on the table by a machine.”
“Quisquis” (The Field, Feb. 21, 1885) agrees With
‘(15)
“ Mogul ” that whist signals are “ arbitrary.” He looks upon
intimations given by arbitrary modes of playing the cards, as
necessary to form the conversation of the game, which enor-
mously increases its interest. He considers it doubtful whether
whist developments have been in favour of skill. He believes
that the American Lead of the fourth-best, from suits opened
with a low card, simplifies the game, by suggesting to partner
three cards in hand all higher than the one led, and hence
that it is an assistance to a moderate player. He fails to
see that it is more' artificial than several established leads.
The remarks of “Mogul” and “Merry Andrew” on the
conveyance of information prove to “ Quisquis ” only this,
that the risk of informing the adversaries has to be run, and
that it sometimes ends in loss. But without the risk the
good player would have to evolve from chaos the position of
the unplayed cards.
If any of the proposed refinements complicate the game
and injure its sociability, “ Quisquis ” suggests that, the
piiii'eiple admitted, the details might await a later settle-
ment.
In The Field of Feb. 28, “N. B. T. ” appears on the
scene: his answer to “ Mogul ” is as follows :—
He understands “Mogul’s ” argument to be that fourth-
best leads are based on the penultimate; that the pen-
ultimate lead is arbitrary; that arbitrary signals are bad;
therefore'that American Leads are bad.
In reply, “ N. B. T. ” denies that American Leads and
penultimate leads are based on the same principle; and, if
so, “ Mogul’s ” argument falls to the ground; for it only
attempts to prove that one rule of play is bad, because a
different rule is not good.
“N. B. T. ” refers to the point that “Mogul” wants to
(16‘)
exercise his wits when playing whist, instead of being only
an observant machine. He is of opinion that the new rules
‘of play tax the reasoning powers of the players more than
‘the old, so that “ Mogul ” need be under no apprehension, lest
his intellectual faculties should become rusty. “ N. B. T. ”
further considers American leads sound in theory and
‘useful in practice, and begs “ Mogul” to re-examine them
and to give them a fair trial in actual play.
' He also remarks that, notwithstanding their name—
American—these leads owe as much to “ Cavendish ” as to
anyone on the other side of the Atlantic.
It is doubtful whether “N. B. T.’s” proposition that
American Leads are not based on penultimate leads can
be upheld. American Leads have been “in the air” for
some time, but the nail has only been hit on the head quite
recently. The history of the development or “invention,”
as “ Mogul” calls it, of American Leads is, in the main, as
below 2-—
“ Cavendish” extended the rule of the lead of knave,
from king, queen, knave, more than one small one; to
ace, queen, knaveymore than one small; to queen, knave,
ten and more than one small ; and to knave, ten, nine, and
more than one small.
“N. B. T.” extended further to king, knave, ten suits,
and to all omitted cases, establishing a principle in place of
a partial rule.
“ Cavendish ” originated the lead of the penultimate. .
“ N. B. T.” extended this to cases where more than five
are led from (Drayson also, and apparently first).
And then the two, “Cavendish ” and “N. B. T.,” inde-
pendently advocated the lead of the fourth-best, from suits
opened with a small card.
(17)
“N. B. .T.” applied the fourth-best rule to cases where
the head of the suit is quitted, and “ Cavendish ” approved,
but only when the head is quitted after the first round of
a suit.
As between “ Mogul ” and “N. B. T.” the one deems that
American Leads convert reasoning beings into observant
machines; the other, that the new rules tax the reasoning
powers of the players more than the old. It is only fair to
“ Mogul ” to add that, in his second letter (which N. B. T.”
had not seen), he somewhat modifies his “ observant
machine ” theory.
? Mr. F. H. Lewis (The Field, March 7, 1885), says every
whist student is told that an elementary condition of success
at whist is uniformity of play, without which the combin-
ation of the cards of the partnership is impossible. Uni-
formity is nothing more than adherence to recognised rules
of play.
He thinks that some of the American Leads may be
found useful in practice, as they enable careful and
observant players to count the hands. On this ground he
-does not object to them, but he feels persuaded that, with
smart adversaries, they will provoke corresponding cards of
deception, in order to prevent such counting. He considers
the introduction of these refinements tends to cause whist
to become less a game of “ relaxation.”
It is clear that Mr. Lewis, who is no mean authority,
disapproves of “ Mogul’s ” idea of there being no such thing
as a law of uniformity. Mr. Lewis also supports \the
increase of difficulty theory, but on the whole does not
object to American Leads.
(18)
In The Field of March 21, “ Mogul” passes in review the
various opinions given. The following is a summary of his
reply :— ‘ ~ ' ,
He conceives that General Drayson mistakes the issue,
which is not whether play which informs partner and
adversaries is preferable to that which deceives them, but
whether the information afforded by the penultimate and
American Leads is necessarily more advantageous to partner
than to adversaries.
He thinks also that General Drayson is biased, but has
not read his Practical Whist.
“ Mogul” then reproaches “ Quisquis ” for basing his
argument on the theory that whist is a game of intimation
carried out by arbitrary signals, this theory being, according
to “ Mogul,” essentially wrong, and a belief in it incom-
patible with a true insight into the spirit of whist; and
hence concludes it to be unnecessary to reply to him.
“ Quisquis ” also incorrectly implies that “ Mogul” and
“ Merry Andrew ” object to a system of play whereby
information is given to the table; whereas their argument
is that the information given by American Leads is more
likely to prove beneficial to the adversaries than to the
leader’s partner.
But even “ Quisquis ” admits that some of the proposed
refinements may be calculated to injure the sociability of
whist. This “ Mogul” appears to regard as quite a settled
fact, though he abstains from saying so in so many
words. .
Next, “ Mogul,” in answer to “N. B. T,” says he implies
that “Mogul’s” conclusions are unsound, because the
American Lead is not based on the penultimate. “ Mogul”
considers the one is based on the other; but, whether or
not, his (“ Mogul’s ”) conclusions are sound, if the American
(19)
Lead is an arbitrary signal, and what “ Mogul ” endeavoured
to prove is that it is arbitrary. “ N. B. T.’s ” logic is faulty.
“ Mogul” confesses he has not read the articles on American
Leads with attention. .
“ Mogul” thinks that “N. B. T.’s ” example of the way
in which American Leads tax the reasoning power of the
players, proves just the opposite; and concludes by raising
a doubt as to “ N. B. T.’s” right to teach us how to play
whist.
Even if he (“ Mogul ”) tried American Leads as suggested
by “ N. B. T.,” and found them advantageous, he would still
condemn them as opposed to the spirit of whist, and as
tending to spoil whist as a social game.
In answer to “ Cavendish,” who advances that the object
of American Leads is to substitute general principles for
independent rules, and incidentally to give precise in-
formation as to the character of the combination led from,
“ Mogul ” asserts that this is not true, because, 1, American
Leads are not based on any general principles; 2, the present
rules are not independent; 3, giving information is not an
incidental, but a main object of American Leads. “ Mogul”
endeavours to prove the above by what amounts to a repetition
of his former arguments.
He also notes that “ Cavendish” admits players must go
through a drill before they can play American Leads, and
he regards this admission as a condemnation of them. He
further repeats that, in his judgment, there is strong pre-
sumption in favour of the objection, that the information
afforded by American Leads is more likely to be useful to
the adversary’s than to the leader’s partner, because, when
a small card is led, information is only given as to number,
and this information cannot assist the leader or his partner,
but may materially assist the adversaries.
(20)
In the above, which is his final contribution, “Mogul”
lashes about in somewhat uncourteous style. General
Drayson is “biased; ” “ Quisquis ” is “ essentially wrong; ”
“ N. B. T.” raises a doubt as to‘ his right to teach us whist ;
and the arguments of “ Cavendish” are “not true in fact.”
Hard words are often held to be symptomatic of a weak
cause ; and it certainly does seem as though “ Mogul ” had
been somewhat worsted. Now what do these hard words
amount to when examined P
General Drayson states that he has had fifteen years’
experience of the practical working of American Leads, as
far as four, five, and six card suits are concerned, and records
his conviction that they are advantageous to those who
practise them. “Mogul” says General Drayson is biased.
Is there any bias in recording a conviction arrived at after
fifteen years’ experience ?
“ Quisquis” looks upon intimations given by arbitrary
modes of playing the cards as necessary to form the conver#
sation of the game. “ Mogul” asserts that this is essentially
wrong. But is it essentially wrong? It is no part of this
summary of the “Controversy” to decide between “Quis-
quis ” and “ Mogul; ” but, even allowing that “ Quisquis”
is not altogether right, he does not appear to be far off
the mark in saying that the intimations which “ Mogul”
calls “arbitrary ” help to form the conversation of the‘
game.
“ N. B. T.,” according to “ Mogul,” raises doubts as to his
right to teach us how to play whist. Did “ N. B. T.” ever
claim such a right? An examination of “ N. B. T.’s”
published hands, cases, and letters in The Field will make it
apparent he has done no more than express “a belief that
American Leads are sound and useful. His tone is rather
to leave it to the judgment ofthe whist-playing, public
(21)
whether they will accept the American Lead scheme or not,
without claiming any right to teach.
And it may be asked, “ Has ‘ Mogul ’ thoroughly qualified
himself as an instructor?” He has not read the articles
on American Leads with attention, and he has not read
Practical Whist at all. Yet he writes, condemning the views
contained in the articles and book above mentioned.
As for “ Cavendish,” it must be very alarming for him to .
learn that, according to “ Mogul,” his arguments are not
_ true in fact. “Cavendish ” has not thought fit to reply to
this serious charge. That gentleman, however, is well
capable of taking care of himself in a literary controversy,
and probably he deems it expedient to await the issue of his
projected Whz'st Developments.
\Vhy the necessity for learning the “ drill” of the new
leads should amount to a condemnation of them, it is not
easy to see. Nor does “Mogul” render it clear why
information as to number cannot assist the leader’s partner.
Having shot all these bolts, “Mogul” announces his
intention of retiring into his “ Shell.” He chalks up “ N o
' American Leads ” on the whist hoarding, and then runs away.
“N. B. T. ” in The Field of March 28, 1885, observes, he
is even more anxious than “ Merry Andrew ” and others, to
elicit the truth, so that disinterested whist-players may
judge where the balance of advantage lies.
American leads, he adds, are not warranted proof against
every possible combination of ‘the cards. N 0 rule of play
could stand such a test.
“N. B. T.” asks, “WVould you with such cards as king,
ten, eight, seven, lead any other card than the seven, for
fear the second hand might hold ace, queen, knave, nine, and
play the ‘nine ‘P ” He assumes an answer in the negative.
(22)
Then why, he proceeds, should you refrain from leading
the seven because you also hold a smaller card? What is
good play in one case appears to him to be good play in
the other.
In reply to “ Merry Andrew,” who points out that when
third hand unblocks in consequence of information afforded
by American Leads, the leader may think he has no more,
“ N. B. T. ” observes the objection is common to any
unblocking game, and therefore has nothing to do with
American Leads beyond this, that opportunities for getting
rid of the command of partner’s long suit, occur more
frequently under the new than under the old system.
The doctrine that it is an advantage to declare strength
(allowed to be correct by “ Mogul” and “ Merry Andrew ”),
but that it is a disadvantage to inform your partner exactly
“ how strong” you are, is so anomalous, and so little
supported by experience, that “ N. B. T. ” is surprised it can
find adherents among any good players. “ Mogul,” “ Merry
Andrew,” and their followers, object to obtaining precise
information as to the strength of partner’s long suit; the
disciples of “ Cavendish ” want all the information they can
get. While this wide divergence of opinion exists, it appears
to be useless to argue the question further.
“ N. B. T. ” is sorry to hear tha “ Mogul ” has not
attempted to master what has been written on the subject;
but is glad to find American Leads have passed the dangerous
phase of existence marked by indifference, and hopes that
the ordeal of opposition they are now undergoing may be the
precursor of final approbation.
“ Merry Andrew ” (The Field, same date), is not altogether
convinced by “ N. B. T.,” nor by “ Cavendish’s ” lecture, but
confesses that the Theory of American Leads now presents
(23)
itself to him in a new light. What has most shaken his early
view is “ N. B. T.’s ” question, what should be led from such
' combinations as queen, knave, nine, seven ? N o doubt the
seven. If second hand holds the dovetailing cards, viz. ace,
king, ten, eight, he should play the eight. The chance of this,
however, would not justify the leader in selecting any card
but the seven. Another moral of this example is, that the
now accepted play of the second hand requires revision.
Though still in some doubt as to where the “balance of
advantage ” lies, “ Merry Andrew” admits there is a good
deal more to be said in favour of American Leads than he
had at first imagined.
He agrees that practical experience is the true test; and
with sufficiently good partners will give these leads a trial.
He regrets “ Mogul ” will not fall in with “N. B. T.’s ”
suggestion to try, and thinks it is only a player's duty to
his partner to lead the card of protection, or the card of
information, unless the lead of such card can be shown, for
other reasons, to be injurious.
He also regrets that “Mogul” should have opposed
American Leads, Without having mastered the literature of
the subject. Some of “ Mogul’s ” statements are accounted
for by his candid admission; but, it somewhat diminishes
“ Merry Andrew’s ” confidence in “ Mogul’s ” views.
’
In a later letter “ Merry Andrew ’ reports that he has
made trials, and has not repented of having done so.
With his short experience he feels satisfied that the extra
complication argument has been grossly exaggerated, and
with “ Quisquis,” thinks American Leads, when the players
become habituated to them, will simplify the game.
The more formidable objection, that information is given
to the opponents, appears to out both ways, with, as “ Merry
<24)‘
Andrew ”' feels (allowing for his short experience), a pre-
ponderance of advantage to the American system.
The result of the “ Controversy ” is admirably summed up
in a few words by “ Cavendish” (The Field, April, 18, 1885).
He says :— ‘
The controversy has left us much where we were before it
began. The believers in American Leads retain their‘
opinion; the objectors retain theirs. As yet we have only
assertions, and statements that no conclusion can be arrived
at without actual trial; and that the wide divergence of
opinion renders it useless to continue the discussion. As
far as a few months’ experience goes, “ Cavendish ” has not
met any one, who having adopted American Leads, has
subsequently determined to abandon them. But more
experience is wanted.
The only remark to be made on the above is that
“ Cavendish” somewhat understates the facts. There is
more than mere assertion. General Drayson has had
fifteen years’ experience; “N. B. T.,” “Cavendish,” and
others, have had the experience of a few ‘months. And, so
far as is known, those who have given a trial to American
Leads persevere ‘in making use of them.
THE AMERICAN LEAD CONTRCVERSY.
LETTER BY “CAvENDIsH.”

“ In reply to your enquiry for statistics as to the practical
working of American Leads, with a view to publication, I
regret I cannot give you any definite information. At a
guess, I should say they make a difference in favour of the
leader and his partner in about one hand in twenty-five or
thirty, after deducting the cases in which they result
unfavourably.
“ The examples I have met with recently, in actual play, are
not very striking. Those which have sufficiently attracted
my attention to cause me to remember them are subjoined.
“ 1. My partner N., not an American Lead player),
is forced. He trumps with the three and leads the two. I
know he has at least three more trumps.
“ After the second round of trumps, two more remain in
(there having been some more forcing).
“ I know my partner has the best trump; but whether he
or an adversary has the smaller one, I cannot tell. It is
my lead.
“ My cards are such that I am in doubt whether to force
my partner, or whether to lead a suit, in hopes of putting
him in to draw the last trump. If he has both trumps, my
best game is to force him, as I have a tenace in another
suit; if he has only one trump, my best game is to try to
give him the lead.
(26)
“ Of course I have to play blindfold.
“My partner’s trumps were ace, knave, six, four, three,
two. If after trumping with the three he had led the four,
as prescribed by American Leads, I should have been able
to tell when he was afterwards forced again with the two
(two rounds of trumps now being out), that he had both the
remaining trumps.
“ This is rather a good illustration of the importance of
showing _ number. It is said, in some quarters, that mere
exhibition of number is more likely to assist the adversaries
than the leader and his partner. I have found the contrary.
It is also argued that if a two is led, there is at once a
declaration of the minimum of strength. If a player has no
suit of five or more that he can lead, that is his misfortune,
and he cannot help declaring minimum strength. But in
another form this merely amounts to a statement that
moderately strong suits are not so advantageous to lead
from as very strong ones; or, that players‘ with moderate
hands are not likely to make so many tricks as those with
more powerful hands.
“ 2. My suit is king, ten, nine, eight, five, four, two. I
lead the eight. This is the right card, independently of
American Leads, the lowest of the intermediate sequence as
a card of protection. Second hand plays seven ; third hand
plays knave: fourth hand plays ace. .
“ Three rounds of trumps come out, and I have the lead.
I lead king of my suit (hearts), which forces the thirteenth
trump from the second hand.
“ My partner remains with queen and three of hearts,
and not recognising the fact that ‘I must hold ten, nine,
plays the three, and blocks the suit. But for this I should
have made five tricks in the suit, the opponents holding
very good cards in the other suits.
“ This is hardly an illustration of American Leads, as the
correct play would, have been the same under the old
system. But, let the seven and the eight change places,
and the beauty of the American Lead of the seven (the
fourth-best), is at once shown. On the ulCl system the four
would have been led, when the third hand could not have
parted with the queen on the second round.
“3. My partner (D. 0., who .had not told me he adopted
American Leads), leads ace of his suit. Second hand plays
five ; I (holding king, ten, three) play three ; fourth hand
plays seven.
“ My partner now leads the six of his suit. Second hand
plays eight ; I play king; fourth hand plays queen.
“The fourth hand had shown strength in trumps. The
ordinary play would now have been for me to force him
with the ten of the suit of which the leader, in correct
play, must hold the knave.
“ But the absence of the deuce and the four caused me to
pause. I did not think the second hand was likely to play
a card of deception. On the other hand, I was not quite
sure of my partner, as, though an intelligent player, he is
not one of the ‘ assorted few, chock full of science.’
“ If the play is straightforward my partner must hold
all the remainder of the suit. So I refrained from leading
the ten lest the strong adversary should discard and the
other make a ruff.
“It turned out well. My partner had (as he ought to
have had) knave, nine, four, two.
“When the hand was over I explained to my partner
that I did not go on with his suit, as I could count all the
others in his hand. To this he laconically replied ‘ Of
course i’ .
“ The above is not a bad illustration of the indifferent
(28)
foundation on which the increased difficulty theory stands.
Even a moderate player takes it as a matter of course that
the whole suit would be placed as in the second round. I
don’t go so far as to say that if he had had my cards he would
have placed all the suit in my hand. I think though it is
very probable he would; he certainly will be able to do so
when he gets more accustomed to these leads ; but I believe
this was one of his first efforts in the direction of the new
teaching.
“ 4. My partner (A. B.) is (oh ! joy!) one of the few
American Leaders I can thoroughly depend on. He deals
and turns up a small card. He wins the first trick in a
plain suit, and leads queen of trumps. He next leads king
of trumps. Now I know he led from at least five trumps.
My knowing that he had three more trumps made the
difference of the game. In order to show how this came off,
I should have to put out the whole hand. I have already
used it as a specimen hand for Whist Developments where
you will be able to see it.
“ 5. My adversary (R. D.) leads seven of trumps. I,
second hand, holding ace, king, knave, eight, play the eight
and win the trick. ‘
“ The lead was from queen, ten, nine, seven, and a small
one. Here the lead of the penultimate seven was disastrous.
I was jokingly accused of looking over my adversary’s
hand. And so I did ; but mentally not physically.
“ You are at liberty to make what use you please of this
letter ; only you must not print any name without
permission.
“ To MERRY ANDREW.”
Messrs. THOMAS DE LA RUE a‘? Go.’s
List of Works by “ Cavendish.”

THE STANDARD WORK ON WHIS’I‘.
8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Handsomely printed in red and black. Price 58.
THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OF WHIST.
Fifteenth Edition.

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Handsorncly printed in red and black. Price 5s.
WHIST DEVELOPMENTS
(AMERICAN LEADS AND THE PLAIN-SUIT ECHO).
[In the Press.

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Fourth Edition. Price 38. 6d.
THE LAWS OP PIQUET
(Adopted by the Portland and Turf Clubs).
WITH A TREATISE ON THE GAME.

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Price 18. 6d.
ROUND GAMES AT CARDS
(LOO, VINGT-ET-UN, POKER, &c.).

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Price 2s. 6d.
THE LAWS or EGARTE
(Adopted by the Turf and Portland Clubs).
WITH A TREATISE ON T HE GAME.

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Price Is.
THE GAME or BEZIQUE.
8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Fifth Edition. Price 1s.
LAWN TENNIS AND BADMINTON.
(WITH THE MARYLEBONE AND ALL ENGLAND LAWS).


MAY BE HAD OF ALL BOOKSELLERS.

London: Mnssns. THOMAS DE LA RUE dz Co.
Messrs. THQS. LA RUE 81 003s LIST.
POCKET GUIDES.
'By “Cavendish.” Price Gd. each.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO WHIST.
POCKET RULES FOR LEADING AT WHIST.
POCKET LAWS OF WHIS'I'.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO BEZIQUE.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO POLISH BEZIQUE.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO EcAR-I-E.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO EUCHRE.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO SPOIL-FIVE.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO GRIBBAGE.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO SIXTY-SIX.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO GALABRASELLA.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO IMPERIAL.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO CHESS.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO DRAUGH'I'S.
THE POCKET GUIDE TO BACKGAMMON.


THE STANDARD WORK ON BILLIARDS.
Cr. 8vo., cloth. With upwards of 200 Illustrations. Fourth Edition.
Price 10s. 6d.
BILLIARDS.
BY JOSEPH BENNETT, EX-OHAMPION. Edited by “ GAvENDIsH.”

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. New Edition. Price 38. 6d.
THE LAWS or SHORT WHIST.
BY J. L. BALDWIN.
AND A TBEATISE ON THE GAME,
BY JAMES CLAY.

8vo., cloth, gilt extra. Third Edition. Price 3s. 6d.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHIST.
BY Dr. POLE, F.R.S.

MAY BE HAD ()F ALL BOOKSE'LLERS.

\ London: MESSRS. THOMAS DE LA RUE & co.
OF ALL DEALERS IN FANCY GOODS.

THE
‘,‘GAVENDISH” WHIST-MARKER.
(PATENT-) "'
The most ingenious and compact Marker ever produced.
In handsomely Enamelled Cardboard, 2s. each; In Tunbridge
e. ._ ... Ware and Nickeled Metal, 5s. each.

THE
PUZZLE 4 GAME OI‘ I'IPTY- UP.
IN BOX COMPLETE.
With GUIDE. By “ CAVENDISH.”
Price Is.

OASSE-TETE ;
THREE PUZZLES IN ONE.
IN BOX COMPLETE.
With GUIDE (containing oner150 Diagrams). By “ CAYENDISH.”
Second Edition. Price 28. 6d.

London: MESSRS. THOMAS DE LA RUE & CO.
(nu-.0
a.‘
a’.
‘1.9..
0...
O
'U...
LONDON I
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD hTREET AND CHARING CROSS.
.3 #3.. at. .
£3)».
,. i.

. d. . . . .
r. (w! dé‘ . Iv 1 v v
m ... v I“ r’;
a a... . A; S . a . , .
a”. _ . . 3..., .
u. v \v $2.... .. ?m.rw~..a>mveaav? 6', ..
.. are.» . . s we.
..
n'd
in:
)v
'63’
"a .l
3?};
a... a».
k...
. \\ v 1...” .
:. div Li. \ 1.. a? if...
s a a o....w..............,.a s. . .
. . I. A... .
»\r..v\
Q .. .
SLJLB? a
If .. A
..~.
@‘
w.» a) 4
:ek’ZJ-Fa
g’ . .
11
'u
u
'.3>
r‘I
WW
seq,”
.M;
T
was. .
.. a. .
_.
‘mu.
s.»
. . "e ‘; '
s.“ . ~\ .
_.
‘-
..
ea.‘ a
‘M :(v
_ .
v.4},
J IPIDIZEZ
. .
. ‘J 1.. I .
.HX . . .. i»...
A.“ rm... . . .4.‘
has? a... .
iL'JwvvmM‘
.15.. ., ....
. .wmweaauxx.
. I \. m . V» 2 J; .
s Awukwa? 7;. 13.1%.
. ... J .9 v...
$9.;
“r
a
. ‘*‘P‘
k‘
a?“
4%
ti.“ _..
£3
.E \. 4. l..1\v\
1 :f/n ewrwwm i
~ 1 .
. . .
.. . 5 .
.ft‘s . .. .12:
a?“ .h. ..: 1...... .s ......F
.. . a I. , .Aiitzww
.. 253..“
‘J L. . . .. \ . .. v
.
7 .
M .
..
M1,-
.“ ... “waste
.... . “my
. we): .uwmwv
zaawuw. 2..
_ .
. r.._
at‘
a w...
.\ . v .
lwwfi i ... .
, .5 Mn \
\.
rd 1
u
..
.13.”, .
“he.
hi.“
‘A
\ l
. v 1. .
mfaww NM a C1.
> .n u A f 1..
. a... .r..,./.¢.s. .3.
.
a:
.. E
3 “we: x
.
n
1
\w h 9...
M
a.
A
I? 1%. EVE...
a. t
.. r.
3.. Ex“. . .
s, .u /. r :d .4 2.
. ,‘R .x». WLWHY
.emwmd E . x.
.;.. a. i
we a...“ as. .
mwMfieafllnf
- M.
Ea.
l. \
‘ I
. any?
Ania a! a.
.1.\\, . . .
A»...
1 a. .
1.0.12».
.HL M50»
. 2 ...
Ia...
2%." k.
i 2.. f.
a
a“ in: