(a) B to Kt 3 is the “classic” defence at this point, and P takes Q B P is frequently adopted by the German master, Andersen. (b) Herr Kolisch is no sluggard when, as in this little skirmish, he gets the attack into his hands.

(c) Apparently his only move.

(d) P to Kt 3, although not quite satisfactory, would have given Black more resource.

(e) Mr. Barnes has played this somewhat disheartening game with great skill and caution, but he appears to have entirely overlooked the combination commenced by White on his 26th move.

IT has been suggested to us, that the most useful lesson which could be given to a learner of Whist would be to place before him an ordinary hand, and point out the considerations which could enter the mind of each player, at every stage of the play-supposing them to have a competent knowledge of the modern game. The usual notes given in these Papers are intended for the advanced Whist player, and do not illustrate to the beginner the continually new calculations it is necessary to make as the progress of the hand shows more and more of the position of the cards. We have accordingly selected the above hand for treatment in this way, not because of any special point in it, but because it illustrates the common course of play in the great majority of hands, and we think it will be found that correctness and attention in simple hands will do more to win, than the occasional brilliancy which takes advantage of extraordinary situations.

Trick 1.-A, on sorting his hand, finds four trumps to an honour, and notices that his 8 and 10 of trumps form a tenace over the 9 turned up, which may be of the utmost importance afterwards. He has a strong suit of Hearts, and he is guarded in the other suits. This is a strong hand, and if he can hope to win the game in the hand he should lead trump, but the score is love all, and it would require two honours in his partner's hand, and some strength in another suit as well to win, and the chances are that his partner does not possess such unusual strength. On the other hand if B is very weak, the game can be saved only by cautious play. Under these circumstances his best play is to open his strong suit of Hearts, and having K, Kn and 10 in it he leads the 10, according to the table of recognized leads.

X has got four trumps to an honour; he has also the Ace of Clubs, but he has two hopelessly weak suits. He must play to save the game. Having the 9 of Hearts, he knows A's lead is from K, Kn, to, and that if Z is obliged to take the 10 with the Ace, or if it goes round, the whole suit is against them. He must carefully note his partner's card, and if it be the 8 or even the 6, he may, when he gets the lead, play to force him, having four trumps to an honour, which is ample justification for forcing, even if the high card should be the commencement of a call for trumps.

it.

B has only three trumps, and as his strong suit is headed by a Kn only, it is hopeless to expect to clear His scheme of the game is, to play wholly to his partner's hand, and to keep his hopes fixed on the fifth trick, which saves the game even should his partner have no honour. He passes the 10 of Hearts, because it is as valuable as the Q if led from strength, and if a weak lead, he must play to protect the suit, by finessing against the Kn.

Z is weak in trumps, and after taking the first trick with H Ace, must play to clear his Club suit. He does not know whether the H Queen is with X or B. He hopes only to save the game. As his suit is headed by a sequence he leads (trick 2) the Kn of Clubs.

A, having K of Clubs, knows Z's lead is from a sequence downwards. If his partner has no honour in the suit his K would be put on to no purpose. If his partner has Ace or Q, it is better to leave the trick to him.

He does not cover therefore. authorities.

N.B.-On this point there seems to be a difference of opinion among the

X is tempted to finesse the Kn,-in many cases a trick is gained by doing so,-but K or Q cannot both be in A's hand, and Z may have led from K, Q, Kn, five, in which case he wants his partner's Ace out of the way. The considerations are many, not all very obvious, but the best players agree that without special reason you should not finesse the Kn in your partner's original lead, and X follows the rule, plays his Ace, and (3) returns the 7, having had only three of the suit originally.

B's Queen wins the trick. He now knows the K is with his partner, and the Heart suit is cleared. He is too weak however to lead trump, and goes on with his partner's suit. As he had only three originally he (4) returns the Q, which makes, and (5) continues with the 8, which A takes with Kn, exhausting the suit to the last card, which he retains.

(6) A has now got a considerable amount of information, and has again to consider the advisability of a trump lead. He has the best Club and the last Heart, so his only difficulty is about Diamonds, but he knows B has no Hearts nor Clubs, for, with a small Club, he would have kept his Q, and not run the risk of it and K falling together. B has therefore eight cards, consisting of trumps and Diamonds only. If he is not strong in trumps, he must be very strong numerically in Diamonds, and may be safely trusted with the protection of that suit, aided by A's Kg. A therefore leads trump, and having four, leads the lowest. B wins the trick with his Ace, and (7) having three only, returns his best, the Kn drops from Z, and A wins with the K.

(8) A's position is now very difficult. By the lead of the trump or the Club, he can only make two by cards, unless his partner has Ace or Q of Diamonds. By the lead of the Heart, if his partner has the 6 of Spades, A and B will make three by cards, and he takes this chance and leads H Kg.

X, remembering that B, on the return of trump, led the 7, knows that he cannot overtrump the 6, which he therefore plays.

(9) X leads the Q of trumps, and knowing that the only chance of his partner making two tricks in Diamonds is that he should be left last in play, he (10) leads the losing Club up to the Kg, and A and B cannot get more than 2 by cards.

THE education of the Whist player is peculiar. How he becomes a Whist player, nobody knows. He never learns his Alphabet, or the Catechism, or anything else that he ought to do. He appears full grown, mushroomlike. He remembers some one blowing him up for doing something that he ought not to have done, and somebody else blowing him up for not doing something else, and he is blown up to the end of the chapter. This phase of being blown up is varied by grumbling sometimes aloud, sometime sotto voce. So that the Whist player is reared on scolding and grumbling, as other youngsters are reared on pap. Truly this is a happy life. Some men grumble on principle, because it is a national privilege, and they avail themselves of the Englishman's birthright. It is their own mess of pottage, and they partake thereof freely. Some do it again on principle, because they believe that if they grumble enough it will bring them luck. Some do it in the hope that they will excite sympathy, and that their friends will feel for their ill fortune, which by-the-bye, Whist players never do. Some grumble to annoy their friends, and we are bound to say these succeed. They declare that they have not won a rubber for a fortnight. They have not had an honour for an age, although we are conscious they have scored them more frequently than we. This is a disagreeable habit that players might dispense with. We do not go to the Whist table to grumble, or to hear people grumble, or to be scolded, but to play Whist. We desire to enjoy ourselves in our own fashion. Our happiness is increased by seeing our friends happy; diminished by seeing those around us cross, angry, surly, or disagreeable. It is the duty of a Whist player to be agreeable, as it is the duty of every man to do all else he has to do as pleasantly as possible. There has been no special commandment that Whist players should be unpleasant to their neighbours. The disagreeables resulting from bad play are quite sufficient without the addition of real or imaginary grievances. If we play according to our means, and we entreat our readers never to play for more than they are prepared then and there to pay, it is of very little consequence to third parties whether A or B win or lose. We may be sorry to see a man lose more than he can afford but our sympathies are only then given on the assumption that he who so lost is a fool. We think that a man who loses more than he can afford is an ass, and we vary this opinion by sometimes assuming him to be a simple ass, and at others a dishonest ass; because the man is dishonest who plays for sums he cannot pay, just as much as he is dishonest if he takes our purse. We know it is very hard on bad players to have a continuous run of luck against them. It is harder on good players; but if the best players were to lose more than they could afford, we could give them no sympathy on account of their loss. They ought to know that skill only occasionally tells, and that the most skilful may have such a run of cards against him, that skill is of no avail.

No man should play Whist who is not prepared to make a loss of 60 points. If he can afford to lose 40 points --a common loss in an evening-then he should leave the table when his 40 points are exhausted. If he goes beyond this, he runs the risk of being dishonest. For our part, we would say to a Whist player, never take credit; and, what is more, never give credit. It is painful to lose, but we believe it much more painful to win of a man who cannot afford to lose; and thus we are brought back to the point that there should be no credit at all at Whist. The game should be played for ready money only, and we believe that with this proviso nothing can be more harmless, as there is no game more interesting and exciting. There is no player of eminence that we have ever known that has not at some period of his life had a continuous run of luck against him for a month, and we have seen the best player of the party lose for a longer period than this. Whist players, as practical men, should recognise this fact. We cannot understand it. We know not what luck is, but the fact of its existence in many forms is continually before us.

Grumbling is not confined to the bad players. There are, unfortunately, good players who indulge in this habit. One of these will allege that in every hand their partner lost one or two tricks; that their partners always play wrong, and that if they had played differently the game must have been saved or won. The theory on which this class work is that one card can make two tricks if skilfully played. It may be that this is true, but then we are not skilful players, and have not yet found out their secret. Play the cards over again in any way the grumbler pleases, and show that the game could not be saved, and that this was obvious to the player found fault with, still they harp on the old string that you have played too rashly, and that you ought not to have led trumps, or you ought to have done something else. The difficulty of this class is that they cannot realise that cards will beat their makers. That skill is of very limited power as against the cards, and that no man (except this kind of critic) can do impossibilities. So great is their skill, that the hands were never yet dealt where, if they had been in their partner's position, they could not have saved the game.

Amongst the good players that grumble are those who say if their partner had played differently, or if something else had happened, the game would have been saved. What is the use of this kind of remark. We all know that if we had played differently, a different result would have come about. If the player played correctly, according to his lights, no remark of this sort should be made. Thus, Queen led. We, second player, having King, 3, 2, covered the Queen. Our partner, fourth player, had the Ace alone. At the end of the hand he said, in a melancholy tone of voice, "If you had not played the King, we should have saved the game." He was quite right; but unless the grumblers desire to make all the players erratic in their style, or in doubt whether, with King and 2 small ones you should cover the Queen, what is the use of such remarks? One man grumbles at his partner because he has not won the game, when in point of fact it was his own bad play that lost the game. We witnessed a case of this sort recently. A player played a weak game throughout, and at the end, with but 3 cards in, he leads the 7 of trumps. The third player knew the fourth player could have nothing but trumps. Third player had King, 8, 3 of trumps; he wanted one trick to save the game, and he passed the 7, knowing that the King must save the game, no matter how the cards were situated. It turned out that player No. I had Ace Queen of trumps, and, with 2 by honours, he ought to have won the game, and he grumbled and laughed maliciously at the third player's bad play. No doubt it was hard to lose the game but No. I had in this case returned his adversary's lead the first trick, having a good suit of his own, and Ace Queen four trumps. He played for a ruff in this first suit and got it, and having told his partner, by his play, that he had no strength, the third player was bound to save the game rather than try to win it. The error was one of an old date, and although the grumbler thought that it was the third player who lost the game, it appeared to us it was the bad form of the first player who caused the loss. The game was an easily won game, and if No. 3 had not been an observant player, with an eye to the score, the game would not have been lost. An instance (one of many) where the careful player loses when the careless and inattentive would have The lesson to be drawn from this is, that you should not play for a ruff with a good suit and 4 good trumps. You should not play a weak game with strong cards, or, in the end, your own cunning overreaches itself.

won.

There is another class of good players who bewail their ill luck when they get 6 trumps, and make nothing of them, or get, perhaps, to the score of 4 instead of winning the game. They grumble throughout the hand, and turn round at the end of it and ask you "if you ever did see such luck as they play with? If I get a hand you see my partner never has anything" and we suppose they expect that if they have 6 trumps, their partner should have the like number.

This class take you into their confidence, and tell you of the extraordinary run of ill-luck they have. If they only win sometimes they would not care so much, but they never win. They reproach their adversaries for the number of trumps they have, and we have heard one speak to an adversary and say, "in the last 4 rubs you have led trumps every time," and when under the impression that he was being criticized, this innocent player replied, "well, I had good cards in my other suits, and I was bound to lead trumps." The grumbler replied, "Oh, it is not your play I find fault with, but the cards you hold."

Some there are who grumble because they have forgotten they had the 13th of a suit, or the 2 best, when these 2 happen to be small ones, and in consequence lose the game, and apparently they seem to think their