It has several times been assumed in the preceding pages that you should convey information by your play. The question naturally arises,How is it that a player gains any advantage by publishing information to the table?It is often argued, and with much show of reason, that as almost every revelation concerning your hand must be given to the whole table, and that as you have two adversaries and only one partner, you publish information at a disadvantage. No doubt this argument would have considerable force if you were compelled to expose the whole of your hand. But you possess the power, to a great extent, of selecting what facts shall be announced and what concealed.
Experienced players are unanimous in admitting that it is an advantage to inform your partner of strength in your own suits, though some advise concealment of strength in suits in which the adversaries have shown strength. Thus, with ace, king, second hand, the usual play is to put on the king. The third hand does not win the king, and hence the leader is able to infer that the ace of his strong suit is against him. But, if you put on the ace second hand, you prevent the leader from discovering where the king of his suit lies. It is, however, found that two honours in the adversary's suit constitute sufficient strength tomake it advantageous in the long run to proclaim your force; while, with less strength, it is not easy to mystify the opponents prejudicially; so that, on the whole, it seldom happens that a balance of gain results from the adoption of deceptive play.
Occasionally, however, a false card may be played with a special object. For instance: ace is turned up to your right, and, when the dealer gets in, he leads a small trump. If you, second hand, have king, queen only, you would be justified in playing the king, in hopes of inducing the trump leader to finesse on the return of the suit. Or, take this case: your left-hand adversary leads originally the five of his strong suit, from king, ten, seven, five. Your partner plays the six; third hand plays ace. You, holding queen, knave, nine, eight, four, three, play the three. Your right-hand opponent now leads trumps; all the trumps come out. The player to your right next returns the deuce of his partner's suit. The original lead being from a four-card suit, king, ten, seven, remain in the leader's hand. If you play knave, the original leader will place queen in your hand, and will hesitate to go on with the suit. But, if you play queen, he will put knave and at least one small one in his partner's hand. Then if, under this impression, he continues the suit, you bring it in.
It is in most cases unquestionably disadvantageous to you that the whole table should be aware of your being very weak in a particular suit, and, consequently, information of weakness should be withheld as long as possible. If you are led up to fourth hand in such asuit, or if your partner opens the suit with a small card, of course the disclosure is inevitable; but until one of these events happens your poverty can generally be kept out of sight. It may happen that you are occasionally forced to lead a weak suit yourself; and in this event the least disadvantage, on the whole, is to tell the truth at once, by first leading the highest of it. Your partner apprised of the state of your hand, by the fall of your smaller card in the subsequent round, will probably deem it prudent to strive by defensive tactics to avert total defeat in that suit, rather than to contend single-handed against the combined strength of the opponents. But, at critical points of the game, it is often right to conceal weakness. Thus, towards the end of a hand, it is necessary that your partner should make a couple of tricks in an unopened suit, of which you hold two or three little cards. You should lead the lowest. If you lead the highest, the adversaries will suspect your weakness at once, and will be sure of it on the second round. Their efforts will then be directed to preventing your partner from making the required tricks in that suit. Your left-hand adversary will not finesse; and if your partner is led through, your right-hand adversary merely covers, or plays the lowest card he has, higher than the one you first led.
When your partner has exhibited weakness in one or more suits, you would frequently be justified in playing a false card. You are driven to rely solely on yourself, and are entitled to adopt every artifice your ingenuity can suggest in order to perplex the otherside. The consideration that you may mislead your partner will no longer influence you, as you know him to be powerless for good or for evil.
You inform your partner by following the recognised practice of the game, as by leading from your strong suit originally, by leading the highest of a sequence, by following suit with the lowest of a sequence, and so forth. If you adhere to this you will soon acquire a reputation for playing a straightforward intelligible game; and this character alone will counterbalance the disadvantage which will sometimes attach to the fact that you have enabled the adversaries to read your hand. If your partner knows that you play at random and without method, he will be in a state of constant uncertainty; and you almost preclude him from executing any of the finer strokes of play, the opportunities for which generally arise from being able to infer with confidence the position of particular cards. The extreme case of two skilled players against two unskilled ones amounts almost to this, that towards the close of a hand the former have the same advantage as though they had seen each other's cards, while the latter have not.
It follows that when you are unfortunately tied to an untaught partner, especially if at the same time you are pitted against observant adversaries, you should expose your hand as little as possible, particularly in respect of minor details.
It will become apparent, on consideration, that the question of the advisability of affording information is more or less intimately connected with every card thatis played. It is, therefore, of extreme importance to ascertain whether the practice is advantageous or the reverse. The arguments just adduced are doubtless in favour of the practice of affording information by the play; but it must be admitted that by far the strongest authority for it is that experienced players, by their settled opinions, reject the opposite course.
The instructed player frequently selects one card in preference to another with thesoleobject of affording information. When the principle is carried thus far, the play becomes purely conventional. For example: you naturally win a trick as cheaply as possible; if, fourth hand, you could win with a ten, you would not waste an ace. But suppose you hold knave and ten, which card should then be played? The knave and ten in one hand are of equal value, and therefore to win with the knave would be no unnecessary sacrifice of strength. Nevertheless, you extend to such cases the rule of winning as cheaply as possible, and you play the ten for the mere purpose of conveying information. This is a simple instance of pure convention. Again: the system of returning the higher of two losing cards (seep.80) when they are both small cards, is purely conventional. To take another case: after two rounds of your four-card suit, you are left with two losing cards, say the six and the seven, and you, having the lead, are about to continue the suit; you should lead the six, not the seven, in accordance with the rule that you lead the lowest card of a suit, except with commanding strength. This being the convention, if you lead the seven, your partner willinfer that you cannot hold the six, and will suppose that you led from a three-card suit, in consequence of exceptional circumstances; if he is a good player he will miscount all the hands, probably to your mutual discomfiture.
Whist conventions, it will be observed, are in accordance with, and are suggested by, principle. Indeed, all the established conventions of the game are so chosen as to harmonise with play that would naturally be adopted independently of convention. The aggregation of the recognised rules of play, including the established conventions, constitute what in practice is called the Conversation of the Game of Whist.
It must not be overlooked that unsound players often deceive unintentionally, and all players sometimes with intention. It is, therefore, necessary to be on your guard against drawing inferences too rigidly.
There are some ways of conveying information which have not been explained. For example: if you have the complete command of a suit, you can publish the fact by discarding the highest of it; the presumption being that you would never throw away a winning card with a losing one in your hand. If you discard a second-best card of a suit of which your partner does not know you to hold a long sequence, you ought to have no more of the suit, for with the best also you would discard that, and with a smaller one you would discard that. By winning with the highest, and returning the lowest of a sequence (more especially fourth hand), you show that you have the intermediate cards. Thus, with ace, king, queen, fourth hand, ifyou desire to continue the suit, and at the same time to show that you still remain with the winning card, you would win with the ace and return the queen. Again, as long as you keep the turn-up card in hand, your partner knows where it is; so, having turned up a nine and holding the ten, trump with the ten in preference. This rule, however, is liable to exceptions. With very small trumps, of equal value, trumping with the higher card may be mistaken for an exhibition of four or five trumps; also, if you are weak in trumps, and the adversaries have shown strength in them, it is not advisable to keep the turn-up card; for, if the adversaries know you have it in your hand, they will draw it, whereas, if you play it, they may be uncertain as to your holding another. If you open a suit of ace, king only, it must be a forced lead. You then adopt the rule of leading the highest of a numerically weak suit, and first lead the ace. This shows your partner (unless you have already been forced, when you lead the ace before king for other reasons), that you have no more of the suit. Also, by leading the lowest of a head sequence of winning trumps (subject, if an American Leader, to a selection of card in order to show number), you convey information. Thus, you lead a small trump, partner plays queen, won with king. You remain with ace, knave, ten. On obtaining the lead, you continue with the ten, and, when it wins, you have shown two by honours (unless ace is held up, which is unlikely). If you continue with ace, as in plain suits, your partner can tell nothing about the knave and ten. You maypursue the same method in plain suits when your partner has no more trumps, and with any head sequence when you want him to win the trick, or are sure he cannot, and also when the fourth hand has already renounced in the suit led.
A most valuable mode of conveying very precise information of strength is within the reach of players who think fit to adoptAmerican Leads(seeAppendix A). As the propriety of these leads is questioned by some players, it may be stated that they form a beautiful system which is in full harmony with the established principles of whist play.
With regard to the American system when leading a high card of your strong suit after a high card, no one disputes the propriety of leading ace, then queen, from ace, queen, knave, and one small card; and of leading ace, then knave, from ace, queen, knave, and more than one small card. In the case of the four-card suit, you select the higher card to tell your partner not to play the king, as you have not sufficient numerical power to defend the suit single-handed. In the case of a suit of more than four cards, you select the lower card that your partner may not retain the command of your suit, and may play the king, should he happen to have held king and two small ones originally. For a similar reason, it is obvious that with queen, knave, ten, and one small card, you should follow queen with knave; with queen, knave, ten, and more than one small card, you should follow queen with ten.
Now, here is a germ of a principle of play.Holding two high indifferent cards, and only four of your suit, your second lead is the higher card; holding more than four, your second lead is the lower card.
For the sake of uniformity, you should pursue the same plan in all cases where, after your first lead, you remain with two high indifferent cards. Thus, your original lead is a ten, from king, knave, ten, and one or more small cards. The queen is played to your ten. You have the lead again, and it is immaterial, so far as establishing the suit is concerned, whether you proceed with the king or with the knave. But, if your practice is uniform, and in accordance with the practice which obtains in the case of ace, queen, knave, and of queen, knave, ten, you can inform your partner whether you led from a suit of four cards or of more than four cards. If you continue with the king, the higher of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and one small card; if you continue with the knave, the lower of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and more than one small card.
With regard to the American system, when opening your strong suit with a low card, those who have already adopted thepenultimate leadfrom suits of five cards, will have no difficulty in again discovering the germ of a principle of play. The fourth-best card of your suit is led from suits of four cards, and from suits of five cards.
You have only to apply the same rule to suits of more than five cards, and to lead your fourth-bestcard. You then pursue a uniform practice, and at the same time convey valuable information. (SeeAppendix A).
As an illustration, take this suit—queen, ten, nine, eight. You lead the eight. Now suppose your suit to be queen, ten, nine, eight, three. You still lead the eight. Now add one more card. Your suit is queen, ten, nine, eight, three, two. You should still lead the eight. No doubt, a careful player would lead the eight, as a card of protection, even if American leads had never been thought of. With lower cards, such as queen, nine, eight, seven, three, two, it is possible a careful player might lead the seven; and with still lower cards, where is he to stop? The knot is cut by the very simple and uniform rule of leading the fourth-best, without reference to the possibility of its being a card of protection.
With regard to the lead of a high card followed by a low card, when the American system is followed, the low card selected should be the original fourth-best. (SeeAppendix A).
The more the American system is examined, the more thorough and perfect it will be found. Care, however, must be taken, with leads late in a hand, not to confuse a fourth-best lead with a forced lead of the highest card of a weak suit. The American rule only applies, in its integrity to the original lead,—or after one or more tricks have been played, to the original lead of the player's own choice, (SeeAppendix A). Also, it may be, that the leader, with very strong cards in all plain suits, starts by leading astrengthening trump. The uncertainty of the real character of the lead, in this case, is no doubt unfavourable; but, the advantage of frequently being able to give information of great numerical strength far outweighs this occasional danger.
Information as to the number of trumps you hold can be similarly communicated when you have more than four trumps, by trumping with the fourth-best and then leading the fourth-best of those remaining. This rule, however, is subject to rather a large exception. When your fourth-best trump is a medium card, such as an eight, trumping with the eight may imperil a trick later on. For instance: with such cards as king, knave, nine, eight, three, a careful player would rightly trump with the three and lead the eight. For the time, you do not inform your partner as to number, because the eight is too valuable a card to get rid of, and the information might be purchased too dearly. Also, when about to lead high trumps after a force, there is no occasion to run any risk by trumping with any but the lowest, as the high cards led will of themselves indicate how many trumps you now hold (not how many you held originally). If you take a force with any trump but the lowest, and do not lead a trump, when your lowest is afterwards played it only signifies that you had at least five trumps originally, and your play does not constitute a call for trumps. (Seep.125.)