The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-01-21
FOR LOVERS OF WHIST.
Howell Explains His Use of the
Term Convention"
Arbitrary and Artificial Methods Con-
demned.

| caro- as Cali lOF lruiNNt through uu LOnor
turned as ga convention It Is the only
convention" Of "a more or less arbitrary
nature that wo employ In the new game
Of whist. A few writers have appeared to
find great deal of the purely conventional
In "Whst Oponings," and their discov-
cries have surprised me not "A little. 1t
has always been my desire (as l state on
page l5l Of "Whist Openings" second edi-
tion) 10 eliminate from the game every
thing Of purely arbitrary nature. That
is what understand by "conyention"-
signal, or play, which IS arbitrary or
empirical, and not natural outgrowth OF
the principles of the game Such is tho
! generally accepted meaning of the term
"whist convention"
Let me illustrate. When player, hold
ing tho king, queen and small cards of
suit, leads the king, and it is won by the
adversary with the ace, or II partner, hold
ing the ace himself allows the king to
win, partner understands that the leader
holds tho queen. Whys Because player
understanding the simplest rudiments of
the game would not ieopardize the king
by Leading &c from the top of a suit OF
| which tho other cards are all small. IL he
has not the aco, his only excuse for leading
the king Is to force the aco out of tho way
so as 20 mako lis next best card, the queen,
good for trick. The play is "A natural
| and logical one, requiring no predeter-
mined rule nor understanding between
| partners. Because 10 Is natural and logical,
and not arbitrary nor empirical, tho mean.
| ing of the play-the Inference TO DO drawn
from it's perfectly obvious 10 all the
other players. The play, therefore, cannot
| properly be called convention.
On tho other hand, suppose the player
has the X, 8, 8, z, q, 8 of "a suit and wishes
| to open 1t. Which Of the six cards would
he naturally choose co lead? Would not
| the intelligent card player, unacquainted
with conventional whist, pick out the
lowest card Of the sultS Experience has
shown that be would--that the natural
lead from tho suit IS the B. Conventional
whist, however. teaches us 20 lead, not tho
8, but tho z from the given combination
that IS, tho fourth best card, counting
from the top. This rule Is purely arbitrary.
In ordor that the meaning Of the play may
bo distinct To the other players, they must
ali know tho rule. A player who had never
heard Of tho fourth best" convention, no
might be, would, never be able 30 fathom
the Leaders, intention in opening with the
rather than the g. The play, i'm order TO
be intelligble, requires prior understand
ing and agreement among the players. IL
Is a convention, pure and simple
Now, when | recommend that long
plain suit DO opened with small card only
IA the presence of accompanying strength
In trumpS and ro-entry, L recommend
nothing arbitrary or artificial, for II lis q
principle of our game that unless the hand
does contain besides the long salt, consid-
erablo trump and re-ontry strength it is
better 70 lot tho long suit alone and open
short one. sbe principle may be unsound.
A few OF the Jod in the wool long suffers
believe that il is. Most of the progressive
whist players of tho present day acknowl-
edge, In full or in part, it's soundness. But
whether the principle Is we'll founded or
not, provided we accept it as a principle
and upon it build up our system OF play,
the methods that VIC uso cannot be called
conventional, nor, as one popular writer
delights 10 put it, wooden. We formu-
late principle. We believe IL TO be IA log
zeal and true deduction from experience and
whist philosophy. Its tenor is that the
player should not open "A long suit with
and re.entry strength sufficient 80 render
IL probable that with reasonable assistance
from partner the suit may be established
and brought in. Now, sippose a player
does open his hand with small card from
plain suit. What should the other play
ers infer9 Is it not that he must possess,
besides his long plain suit, considerable
trump and re-entry strengthY
/ fail TO sec anything arbitrary or con-
ventional either in tho inference or in the
pluy itself And when Mogul, tho ia
nous English writer on whist, takes this |
play for text upon which TO preach SER |
mon against conventionalism, as he re-
Gently did in the London Field, l can ez- |
plain his attitude only by supposng that |
he is not acquainted with the fundamental !
principles OF our whist theory.
But TO return To the proposition with I
which we started. Idosire TO acknowledge |
that the lead OF small card as a call for |
trumps from partner Is, indeed, conven-
tion, though not altogether empirical. 1t |
Is what may be dcnominatod logical con-
vention, which is founded upon principle, |
but developed step beyond that point
Lot Us analyze tho idea. An honor-say, |
tho quoon--is turned. lead a small lay
card. by so doing tell partner, without
any convention whatever, that hold con-
siderable trump strength. encourage
him TO lead trumps Should do so un-
less / held trump tlat would beat the
turned honorg Probably not. Now comes
tho step--the step beyond principle. In
celebrating our system Of play we toll the
player that the card which he leads in this
situation absolutely must have tho mean
ing that il probably should have This is
tho only arbitrary feature OF tho process.
The probability we agree 90 convert into q
certainty, and upon the certainty we estab-
llsh tho rule.
wonder II Mogul has received n copy
OF the latest edition of Works whist OF
Today" in which tho author recommonds
tho queen, and as calling cards" for
no other reason than that tboy can De most
easily afforded for tho purpose, being less
frequently lol Gin accordance with other
There IS sompirioism for you'll
I'm comparison with &c my small card
"call' Is as elementary and unpretcuding