prevent the offence, there ought to be no penalty for it. If our legislators, when framing this law at Dummy, had had their attention called to the point, they must have felt that consistency required that they should not inflict a penalty at Whist for omitting to play, unluckily however, and in spite of the inconsistency, they left the law at Whist as it stands, and no amount of arguing what they ought to have done will expunge it. The question therefore for our consideration is simply this, Does the same exception include the case of omitting to play? It most clearly does not in terms include it, but " M or N" and "Temple" argue that it includes it by inference, inasmuch as the reason for remitting the revoke penalty applies equally to the case of omitting to play. Undoubtedly it does; but still their argument is unsound, for they fail to bear in mind that whilst the exposure of the hand at Dummy enables the adversaries to prevent the revoke, it leaves their power of preventing the omission to play entirely unaffected, and their argument is nothing more than this, "Because a penalty is remitted at Dummy, in a case where the exposure of the hand enables the adversaries to prevent the offence, it must be inferred that a penalty is intended to be remitted in another case in which the exposure of the hand makes no difference whatever, but leaves the power of prevention as at Whist." Strange reasoning this, especially for one who, like "M or N," proposes to teach us all how to construe Whist Laws, and despises the opinions of lawyers on points of Whist Law! One word more with "M or N;" he refers to the "extraordinary manner" in which, as he alleges, I "confuse in my reason articles 2 and 3." Now, strange to say, knowing that article No. 2 had nothing to do with the point, I did not refer to it even in the most remote way. I suppose therefore that when I stated "that if it could be proved that the omission was to the last trick (only 10 tricks were played), and if Dummy had not played to the next, his partner would be in time to save the penalty," "M or N" rushed to the conclusion that I was referring to the penalty for a revoke affected by article No. 2; but I need hardly tell your readers no such thing, the reference was to Law 69, which does not inflict any penalty on a player omitting to play to one trick unless he has also played to the next. May it not justly be inferred that "M or N" was ignorant of this, and may we not fairly doubt his qualifications for assuming to be our schoolmaster? Whether or not the case of omitting to play is included in the third exception, formed the substance of my previous letter, and to that I refer my readers for the reasons of my opinion that it is not. Here Mr. Lewis comes to my aid, and argues that the third exception applies exclusively to what Dummy's partner may do with his own cards. Grammatically he may be right, but the explanation, forming part of the exception, that Dummy is still to be liable for the penalty of leading out of turn, implies the contrary. Considering however, that this point is of no practical importance, Mr. F. H. Lewis will excuse me for not discussing it at greater length. "Teniple's" reasons would be very good if the question were: Whether there ought or ought not to be a penalty for omitting to play? as it is they do not apply. There is a penalty at Whist for that act-the laws of Dummy are declared to be the same as at Whist, with certain exceptions, of which the case of omitting to play is not one. It is for him to prove that it is one, and not merely that it ought to be one. As a matter of comment, is it not curious that Dummy should be said to be "blind and deaf?" whereas, if he is to be credited at all with a corporeal existence, instead of being regarded as a mere "alter ego" of his partner, we should give him credit for the supernatural power of knowing all his partner's cards and thoughts, rather than deprive him of the power of seeing and hearing; in other words, he does not need to see or hear, because he already knows, and consequently gains no advantage by irregularities of his partner, which at Whist might give an ordinary human partner useful information. To the Editor of THE WESTMINSTER PAPERS. A LOOKER-ON. SIR,-If, as an equity lawyer, I might venture to express an opinion on the disputed point at Dummy, now discussed in your columns, I should say that your correspondents, "M. or N.," and "Temple," have the best of the argument. They recognise that when the code is too summary, or indistinct, that the spirit of the law should prevail, not the dry letter, as your correspondents, "Mr. F. H. Lewis," and "Looker On" would have it. I do not see that I can put better (than has already been put) the argument, grounded on the implication from there being no penalty for the revoke at Dummy, and the reason given for it by the Rules. Omne majus continet in se minus rules the case. The adversaries are bound to protect themselves from the grossest act known at Whist, namely, the revoke, because they see the cards "a fortiori," by every inference and implication they are bound to see that Dummy plays a card to each trick, because they see the cards. It often happens that Dummy has but one card of the suit led, the adversaries win the trick, and Dummy's partner, without touching Dummy's hand, leaves the adversaries to gather the trick, because it is self evident they are bound to gather up that card with the trick. Yet, if they purposely left it behind, and Dummy's partner did not notice it, then, according to your sticklers for the letter, the offenders, as I should call them, might call for a new deal. Rule 69 of the Whist Code is a peculiar one, it seems to be founded on this consideration, that there has been an act of "laches" on the part of the non-player, on the part of his partner, and on the part of the adversaries. I say on their part, because, as a Whist player, I feel I should be bound in honour and according to etiquette, to call attention to the lapse if I observed it in time, and the remedy provided by the rule, expressly barring the revoke penalty, implies there are faults on all sides. But as accidents will happen, the rules are obliged to provide some remedy, and as the subsequent play of the hand is affected by this act of "laches" and as the fault is greater on the part of the original culprit than on the part of his inspectors, they mildly enact that if the latter like to run the risk of a new deal they may claim it. But at Dummy, I submit that the adversaries are equal culprits with the offender; practically more so, as there are two of them, and as their wits and attention are, I should say, less strained and preoccupied than those of Dummy's partner. They see the cards, and we know that entitles them to interfere with Dummy's play; I say it binds them to interfere if they wish to protect themselves. Therefore, I submit that the reason for Rule 69 at Whist does not exist at Dummy, and I have little doubt that had the possibility of this point being raised been suggested to the code makers they would have as explicitly expressed themselves, and to the same effect as they did concerning the revoke. They possibly thought, if they thought at all about it, that the wording of Rule 3 at Dummy was wide enough for exempting Dummy's partner from the operation of Rule 69. I am afraid I have added little or nothing to the excellent arguments already published by you in favour of your decision, but as a great admirer of Dummy I wished to raise my voice against that strict attention to the letter, which, when reason is against it, is seldom good law or common sense, and which if it were to prevail here would lead to ill feeling and bickerings infinite. Yours, TRUMPS. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. CHESS. WALLASEY, Liverpool.—The solution you give is the author's idea. We shall re-examine the question, and report upon it next month. J. A. M., Fakenham.-We corrected the diagram in our second edition. In the problem you have favoured us with, will not the capture of the Black Queen at White's third move serve instead of the sacrifice of the White Queen? S. H. T., Kennington. -Held over for want of space. Don't you think E. F. has put the matter in a nut-shell. W. C., Cheltenham.-" Good is good" was received in good time, but the acknowledgment was blundered. See the correction this month. Thanks for your problems, and send us the game by all means. Do you ever visit town now? T. H., Caversham Road.- Glad to hear from you. The problem shall be reported upon next month. We are inclined to think that there is a shorter route than you designed to the WHIST. J. P., Boston, U.S. (Leads).-At Whist, with no indications whatever (we will say the first lead), I am forced to lead from a suit containing the Queen and two small cards, according to J. C., which is the correct card to lead?-Ans. We cannot imagine a hand where it would be correct play to open such a suit. J. C. would rise from his grave if it were suggested to him that any of his pupils would do anything of the sort. BRIGHTON (Leads).—A, first hand, holds Ace, King, Knave, ten and five of trumps; he has no other good cards, and no long suit. He leads the five of trumps. Was A's play good, bad, indifferent, pardonable, or in what other terms should it be described?-Ans. We should say this was Whist gone mad. The player can get two rounds with Ace, King, and if Q does not fall, he has second and third best trump left. He can get out the Q and be left with best, and he will get a discard from his partner to show him what not to lead. What he is to gain by leading the small trump we do not see. Partner may have Queen, but in that position the leader gains nothing; they are four by honours, and must make five tricks in trumps. lf third player has the nine, he may win with it. It is an even chance as between second and fourth player, who has the Queen. The advantage is so small, and the disadvantage so great, that we do not think the matter will bear discussion. IBID (Looking at last trick).—A player laid down a rule as from Cavendish, that you cannot ask to see the last trick at the time that it is your turn to play to the succeding trick, but must wait till after you have played; is there any such rule ?-Ans. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Poor Cavendish, how he must suffer. What strange doctrines he has propounded. We never yet heard any very outrageous proposition made at Whist which was not supposed to be vouched by Cavendish. We once remember a player having Ace, King, Queen and two others in a plain suit. He led the two, and said we told him to do so! If Cavendish has said anything in private to the effect stated, as Artemus Ward says, "that was a goak." But a public man should be judged by his writings, and if any one alleges Caven dish said this or that he should point to the passage, and not give his opponents the trouble to prove a negative. We are sufficiently well acquainted with Cavendish's writings to know that he never said anything of the sort, and therefore we do not take the trouble to look. The gentleman who stated that Cavendish has said so can bring us to confusion by producing the article. Any player has a right to see the last trick at any time, both before and after he has played, until the present trick is turned and quitted. THE third annual contest between representative Chess players of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, was played on Friday, the 19th ult., at the Guildhall Tavern, in Gresham Street. As was the case in the two preceding matches, this one was conducted under the auspices of the members of the City Chess Club, to whose public spirit and good management indeed much of the success attending it must be ascribed. Each University was represented by seven players, who were paired by their respective captains, according to their reputed skill; each pair to play two games, with a time limit of one hour to each player for twenty moves, and all games unfinished at half-past ten o'clock to be decided by Herr Steinitz, who was appointed umpire for the occasion. Notwithstanding the regulation as to the number of games to be contested, some eager spirits engaged in more than the conditions of the match required, and seventeen games were played in all. Of these Cambridge won 10, Oxford 5, and two were drawn, the victory for the second time thus falling to the former. The following list shows the pairing of the players and their respective scores : It would be somewhat exacting to look for a very high quality of play in these matches. The gentlemen engaged in them are too young to have acquired much practical experience, and we may safely assume are too deeply absorbed in more important studies to devote any considerable part of their time to the theory of Chess. It is therefore not altogether an uncommon occurrence that a game is won rather through the inadvertency of the loser than from any superior knowledge or powers of combination evinced by the winner. Mistakes of that sort are, of course, in a great measure owing to insufficient practice, and it is due to the University players to say that, considered apart from such shortcomings, their games are full of promise of future excellence. Perhaps the most curious circumstance connected with these University Chess matches is the attention they receive from persons wholly ignorant of the game. Chess, which, notwithstanding its remarkable development in recent years, is still " caviare to the general," must, to the uninformed spectator of a game, be as tedious as its technicalities are incomprehensible; yet many are attracted to these matches who, from their remarks and questions, it may be inferred are ignorant of even the names of the pieces. As such crowds have never been known to congregate on similar occasions when the standard of play was considerably higher, the excitement cannot be attributed to the attractions of Chess, but it is probably due to a genuine interest felt by all classes of the people in everything concerning the two Universities. In the spacious rooms of the Guildhall Tavern overcrowding is scarcely possible; nevertheless, the blindfold play of Herr Zukertort, and the "simultaneous games" of Mr. Blackburne, materially contributed to the general comfort, presenting rival attractions to the eager sight-seers. Herr Zukertort played his six games simultaneously, without sight of the board, with the utmost ease, winning 5, and losing 1 only, and Mr. Blackburne played twenty games, seeing the boards, winning 19, and also losing 1. Upon the termination of the University match the combatants, together with a large assemblage of metropolitan Chess players, sat down to an excellent supper, provided by the hospitable City Club. The toasts of the evening were responded to by Mr. Keynes on behalf of Cambridge, and by the Honourable Mr. Plunkett for Oxford, and several other toasts having received due honours from an enthusiastic meeting, the third InterUniversity Chess Match was brought to a happy conclusion. The Handicap Tourney of the City Chess Club terminated in the early part of the month, and is chiefly remarkable for the precocious ability displayed by the winner of the first prize, Mr. Maas, who is said to be only eighteen years old. Mr. Maas received the comparatively small odds of Pawn and two moves from the first class, and his well-fought battle with Mr. Potter at these odds, proves him to be possessed of very-high qualities as a Chess player. The Glasgow Herald announces that the annual Tourney of the Edinburgh Chess Club resulted in the victory of Mr. C. Meikle, with a score of seventeen out of a possible one of eighteen. Next in order were the Rev. G. McArthur, Mr. Gloag and Mr. Macfie. The News of the Week, a popular Glasgow journal, contains a carefully edited and enterprising Chess column. The Editor has announced a Problem Tourney in which he offers a volume of the WESTMINSTER PAPERS to the contributor of the best set of three problems, none to exceed four moves, published in his paper from the 6th March last to the 29th May next; and to the solver who discovers the greatest number of unsound problems that may appear in his column during the same period the writer offers a volume of the City of London Chess Magazine. We are glad to observe that the principle of giving rewards for the analysis of problems is obtaining general recognition. Without analysis the solution conveys to the mind of the solver a very imperfect conception of the composer's work, and to form an opinion of a problem upon that alone. would be something like pronouncing judgment upon a comedy from a sketch of the plot. The News of the Week is published every Saturday, and the Chess column has, we trust, a long and prosperous career before it. Messrs. Pierce's Book of Problems, by the 1 est English composers, is making good progress, and, it is hoped, will be ready for publication about the end of the year. The editors propose to add to their original design a supplementary chapter, containing one unpublished Problem from each of the contributors, and the proposition, we are glad to hear, has been cordially received. Many of the contributors must necessarily include in their quota of twelve some of their earliest efforts, and the interest of the book will therefore be grea ly enhanced by the addition of a new Problem from the facility it will afford for marking the progress of each composer in his art. We cannot help thinking that it would add greatly to the future value of this book if all the contributors could be induced to append to each diagram a note of the year in which it was first published. There is a "fashion" in problems as in other things, and the usefulness of such a note will be apparent to students of "collections," who must have often wished for such a guide in their efforts to trace the formation or changes of style in eminent composers. All the Problems should be sent to Mr. Pierce, Terrace Villa, Roehampton, S.W., on or before the 1st of June next. La Stratégie, in accordance with the promise made last month, announces an international problem tourney for three prizes provided by M. Jean Preti, the proprietor of that journal. The 1st prize will be a self registering Chess board, the 2nd Seven volumes of the La Stratégie 1867 to 1874, and the 3rd A Traveller's Chess Board, with boxwood and ebony pieces. A committee of examination has been appointed, comprising M. E. Le Quesne, M. Nachmann, and M. Preti jun. and these gentlemen, we note with pleasure, have adopted the plan suggested in our February number of reporting during the progress of the tourney upon any defective problems their examination may discover. The problems are to be addressed, prepaid, to M. Jean Preti, 72 Rue Saint Sauveur, Paris, and must be sent before the 1st October next, after which date no further entries will be received. The following are the regulations and conditions of the tourney :— 1. Each competitor to contribute a set, consisting of four unpublished Problems, ordinary mates. 2. Each set to contain one Problem of two, three and four moves respectively; the fourth problem may be in two, three, or four moves, at the option of the composer, but no problem is to exceed four moves. 3. The Problems, inscribed with a motto, and accompanied by solutions, to be enclosed in a separate envelope. 4. A second envelope, endorsed with the same motto, and covering the author's name and address, to accompany the Problems. These envelopes will not be opened until after the prizes have been awarded. 5. All the Problems found to resist a preliminary examination will be published in La Stratégie, and the prizes will be awarded on the expiration of two months from the date when the last set has been published. The other contents of this valuable periodical are as usual varied and clever, the complaint of an Ancient Amateur deserving special mention. Among the items of news, we observe that a number of amateurs, acting under the initiative of M. Rosenthal, have resolved to establish a new Chess association in Paris, and that a provisional committee has been appointed to carry out the project. The committee is composed of the Marquis d' Andigne, the Count de l' Eglise, Fery d'Esclands, Max Kann, the Prince de Villa Franca, with M. Le Quesne as honorary secretary. The object of the new association is announced to be the promotion of national and international Chess Tourneys, and the social communion of the aristocracy and wealth of Paris, in a place from whence the practice of staking large sums on games of chance or hazard will be banished. The editorial reflections that follow are of the most amiable character, but we fear the passion of the present age for gambling is not to be effaced by the simple expedient of establishing a new Chess Club, although it is undeniable that, as in the present case, much might be effected in that direction by the influence of example in high places. The Deutsche Schachzeitung for March, has, this month, another article-this time an editorial-upon Problem composition. There is also a suggestive article upon the King's Knight's Gambit, and the usual summary of news-the latter including an account of the blindfold Tourney at Prague. A new Chess Club has been formed at Lünebourg, of which Herr V. Schutz is the first president. The Nordisk Skaktidende opens this month, and, indeed, well nigh concludes, with a very elaborate criticism upon the set of problems, which, under the motto "Look after the Cáby," obtained the first prize in the late British Chess Association Tourney. The article seems rather in the nature of a defence, but is not the less interesting on that account. The problem in the margin was composed in memoriam of the late Mr. Malmqvist, and appears in the number under notice, with a sympathetic letter from the ingenious author, Mr. C. A. Gilberg, of Brooklyn. It will be observed that in this problem the pieces are so disposed as to represent the letter M, surmounted by a cross. After contradictions from various sources the report that a new high class Chess periodical is about to be established in America turns out to be well founded, and the first number is announced, in the Hartford Times, to appear in the course of the current month. The American Chess Magazine will consist of 24 pages of games, problems, analysis, stories, &c., and will be produced under the joint supervision of Messrs. B. M. Neill, J. E. Orchard, T. P. Bull, and E. A. Kunkel, at a subscription price of two dollars per annum. The Hartford Times has been more than usually successful these last few weeks in the production of remarkable problems. The principal "sensation" in this connection is the one representing a tomb-stone, inscribed with the editor's epitaph, a piece of sepulchral humour to which Mr. Belden imparted the touch of natural warmth it seemed to lack by publishing it as his VALENTINE!! From that point the joke is irresistible. BLACK. WHITE. In the Brooklyn Review, Mr. Barrett, of the Brooklyn Chess Club, has commenced a weekly article, consisting of games, problems, news, &c. The Review is a welcome addition to our list of American Exchanges. A second Handicap Tourney has been organised at the Cafe International, the competitors to play three games with each other. According to the Brooklyn Review, Captain Mackenzie, Dr. Barnett, and Messrs. Alberoni, Crosbie, Sindehn, Mason and Smith have entered the lists. From the same authority we learn that a match between Captain Mackenzie and Mr. Delmar resulted in the victory of the former. In the Tourney of the Philadelphia Chess Club, considerable progress has been made, Mr. H. Fisher, of the third class, showing the highest score. Through the exceeding liberality of the president, Mr. Joseph M. Bennet, 26 prizes have been provided-one for almost every combatant. In Miron's column (New York Clipper) we see announced that a new operetta entitled "A Game of Chess" is about to be produced on the stage of the theatre at Providence, Rhode Island. The dramatis persone will consist of Kings, Queens, Bishops, Knights, &c., and the chorus will represent the Pawns. We can hardly conceive how the slightest dramatic interest can be evolved from such a theme. Middleton's comedy called "A Game of Chess," although it was played for nine days at the Globe (Shakspeare's) theatre in 1610, and caused the imprisonment of the author, is only now known from the references made to it by Twiss, who describes it as void of plot, and, we should judge from the specimen of the dialogue he gives, obscure of purpose. The author's petition to King James the First for release from prison was more successful than his comedy. Here it is "A harmless g Was play'd 'twixt Black House and the White, The White House won; yet still the Black doth brag, 'Tis but removing of a man-that's me. The Dubuque Journal for March contains no fewer than 51 pages, besides supplements, containing extracts from the problems of Messrs. Brown, Carpenter and Hanshew. Mr. Carpenter's selection of problems will shortly be issued in a complete form. The Maryland Chess Review is a bright and lively magazine, and should be as well supported in England as it is in America. The problems and games are selected with excellent judgment, and the literary contents are invariably entertaining and happy in style. The March number opens with Catching a Tartar, an amusing sketch, which we believe originally appeared in the Huddersfield College Magazine. This clever little story appears to have quite taken the fancy of our cousins, for we find it reproduced in some of their best Chess columns. The Story, "Was I to Blame?" in the Dubuque Fournal, bears a strong and as from the date of its publication there can be no suggestion of copying-a curious family likeness to "Catching a Tartar," except in the illustrative game, which in the former lacks vraisemblance. Both deal with a conceited Chess player, opposed to one who, although not quite unconscious of power, makes no vainglorious display of it. Mr. Hanshew, the editor of the Maryland Review, is engaged upon a translation of the last edition of the German Handbuch into English, and proposes to issue the work at a subscription of about fourteen shillingsless in fact, than the price at which the original can be obtained in England. We have no doubt that Mr. Hanshew's enterprise will be rewarded with the complete success it deserves. |