The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-04-04
ApOUNDTTE WHIST TABLE.
PROPOSED CHANGES IN WHIST LAWS
ran JHE CONGRESS- TO CONSIDER.
ysc penalty for hcVohing-impcrrert -FOUR
,rrttr$-"C ommou.Scrso whist" ana tho
NH st,lo or Ga,ne-Probieins-Ctub Notes.

,nn regard to changes in tho present code OF
,ll., laws arc becoming more frequent, and
,,c,, =. abundant evidence that the need OF re-
,I., In s1mc minor particulars is widely felt.
w., chief difficulties with tho present code arc
,,, IN connection with duplicate whist. and
,,,-,,y laws which seem 10 givo more trouble
,,., nuy othcrs arc those relating 20 exposed
coris and to tho revoke penalty.
T,,r SIN has lately received quito II number
o.lct'ers from various quarters calling nttcn-
,,, "a ,hc defects in these laws. and requesting
It's pinion on the proper remedy for them. A
,orrssnondcnt In Grecnock, Scotland, says they
,rc rl,ying duplex" whist a good deal, but
h,yc found some trouble with tho revoke pen.
sl,v opl the way it affects tho scores. lie says
,,rce tricks are still taken for tho revoke there,
m, American rulo of two tricks not being con
,tlored nv the Britishors as severe enough, and
,,ooii-sn three tricks for each revoke throws
.,t the averages OF tho hands moro than two. "
when THE Sun representative was In Boston
no Interviewed u number of prominent players
,ber, ON he subject of tho revoke penalty in
dpnli,a,r. capt. Bouv6 of the American team
rcn,ioucd a case which had recently occurred
q, his club In which one OF the players who was
among the leaders for the highest individual
score had boon severely handicapped by one of
his rivals getting six tricks on ono hand for re-
woke penalties, all of which were exacted bo-
cause II curd had been left in the tray with tho
trump Indicator. In a recent game at the Whist
Club in New York q player revoked five times In
one hand. The jack Of diamonds was led and he
discarded a club. His partner won the trick
and forced him, and this force was repeated
three times after that. At the end of the hand it
was discovered that the player who had refused
TO follow suit to the diamond and had aftcrward
...,,l t. fottr tiu,ea had tho hing In HE hnn1
all the time. sorted with his hearts. The actual
,eorc made by the revoking players on this hand
was Just enough to pay the penalties, so their
,dyersarics scored thirteen on the hand. After
the game was over ii was found that no one had
made more than five tricks with tho cards that
scored thirteen against the revokcs. Such things
naturally throw out all tho averages and work
great injustice to the players at the other tables,
who have nothing to do with the revoke except
10 suffer from the fact that In n flve-table game
difference Of ten tricks will pull down all the
averages two points.
Several suggestions have been made to remedy
this state OF affairs, one being to take only two
tricks, no matter how many revokes have been
made. This would rather put IA premium on n
players continuing to revoke, after he had once
done so, in tho hope that the after play might
pull hin out even on the hand. 1t would seem
that the fairest way to adjust the revoke penalty
at duplicate would be to regulate it by the pos
sibilities Of the hand, which could be determined
by a comparison of the scores after all tho tables
In the room had played the cards. The best way
would be to put down the actual tricks taken by
each side, and then to make a marginal note,
+Ror-R meaning plus or minus a revoke. or
as many rcvokes as occurred in the hand. At
the end of the game the maximum score on
that hand could be asCertained. and il the
actual tricks taken by the players against
whom the revoke was made. plus the penalties.
did not exceed that maximum, the revoke penal
ties would be added to their scurC " .cducted
from that OF their advcrsarics. nu' The addi-
ton o. the revoke penalties made The score on
that hand exceed the maximum made at any
other table the total penalties would not be al
lowed. hut only so much OF them as would bring
the hand 10 the maximum. This would be in ac-
cordancc with the present rule, that revoke
penalties added to actual tricks taken cannot
exceed thirteen. that is, cannot exceed the pos
sibilItics OF the hand. Why should it not be
equally fair to assume that the possibility OF q
given hand is the most that can be got ont OF 1t
after it has been played over at fifteen or twenty
different tables!
suppose y and 5 score : tricks, plus two re-
vokes. on a given hand. The maximum of this
hand is found to be . tricks. and some players
made only 3 on it. Although the revoke penal
ties would naturally carry the y and : score to
J. tricks. they should be satisfied with 9. which
is presumably the legitimate possibility OF the
hand. The + and " pair would OF course take
the minimum, which would be 4 tricks.
A. the scores are now kept in most OF our COM
pass matches there would be some trouble in
rnd.ag the maximum on the hands If there were
several in which rcvOkcs occurred during an
evening" play; but in Boston the manner of
scoring is entirely different and in many respects
a Ia shat l.Vta -. pVNH - sIa.- ,tN- a"N
me maximum ON any hand can. be found immc-
diately. The usual method OF playing in the
large clubs Is TO have an indiscriminate distri-
5,.utlon 9t the players among the y and ; and the
Il and w positions, those sitting y and ! never
nceting any but those sitting f and W. In
5y +. c. M5owp"i.. Witch Is very Ss'G much ike
iihe Stafford system described in THE Sun
feo. SO far as the movement OF the players
goes, but tho scoring is entirely different. In
stead OF each pair having its own score card and
every player spending his time and ingenuity in
on hands which he has still to play, the score
card, belongs 10 the tray and travels with the
hand. IL j. numbered for each pair that
table il IS taken out and the score Of
each pair, y and S and L and ", is put
pair, Whatever It is. Ali the x and s scores
being in a vertical column under one another.
tglance will show the maximum made on the
any scores marked r Il or r., they can he i'm
nediately adjusted according to the foregoing
suucihe U allowing the players entitled TO re-
yoke penalties to reach, but not to pass, tho
MAXIMUM made on the hand in which the re
woke occurred. This does away with the abb
sGrdity OF giving one pair thirteen tricks on q
manu- which the best players In tho world could
not feI more than five out of against the worst
possible play, barring revokes.
Ihe other point in the laws which Is pnrtlcu-
Ariy objectionable Is the regulation for calling
exposed cards and leads out OF turn. Tn pres
sntlaw, No. %, reads as follows:
~ a player having a card liable to be called
inlst not play another until the adversa-
rs have stated whether or not they wish to call
me card liable to tho penalty. II he plays an
oNer card without awaiting the decision OF the
called"
The usual result OF this law Is to force three OF
lAeplayers at tho table to sit and look at tho
WNllng, or TO take out their watches and wind
NON. or something of that kind, until the
payer whose turn IL 10 to call the card or the
sI a"nkes to tho fact that the table 10 waiting
~ his decision and not for tho other mar to
pay, II the partner reminds him that he has a
Psaaliy TO exact, tho right to exact 1t Is lost,
nehCe the funeral.
yohn !. Mitchell OF Chicago has the following
'%aosltute TO suggest for tho present law;
\ card liable to be called must be called by
IIe tHht'hand adversary before such adversary
~ playcd 10 the current trick; falling to do so.
n'IHust walt until a subsequent trick before
,SaeG pay another card before his right-hand
"Sgle 70 be called"
lHe law relating to exposed cards in the gamo
ghri seems 10 cover tho ground about as we'll
n1aNNlLluL and ia Cprtninly much better than