The San Francisco call., 1897-03-28
General Drayson on the Laws o.
Whist.

General Drayson on the Laws Of
Whist.
The following letter, recently received from
Major-General Drayson, late R.A., FIR AS,
on the proposed changes in the laws govern
ing the game of whist. will no doubt be read
with great interest by all whist-players in this
country. When our present code of laws was
adopted at the third congress held in Chicago
in 1893 many suggestions offered by General
Drayson in one of his publications, "The Art
of Practical Whist" which came from the
press in 1879, were embodied In them, but for
some unknown reason he never was men,
toned as the originator. There Is no man in
the whist world to-day who has introduced so
many good ideas in the game as he, and we
know of no one whose opinion will have
greater weight, and for that reason We invited
him to offer suggestions for improvement on
our code.
We give the full text OF his letter:
20 AsHBURToN ROAD,
Southsea, England
To p. j. Tormey, Chairman Revision of the
La,cs of Whia-DEAR SIR: In reply to your
invitation that should submit any sugges-
ton on the above subject, can state that
have very few remarks to make and for the
following reasons:
First-In my book. 'eThe Art of Practical
Whist" published in 1879, pages "a, rs and
20. / called atten ton to the grave defect III
the English laws relative to a player lowering
his hand so that his partner could see every
card and yet no penalty could be inflicted.
Eleven years afterward this law was altered
in the American code. (See law 20. sections 8
and ~
second-At page 80 OF the same book re-
mark: "The longer / play whist the more I
regret that rule 81 exists. and that it is at all
pos sible to see the cards of q trick turned and
quilted"
This suggestion has been adopted in tho
American laws. (see law 37.)
Third-In case 10, page 203, of the same book
called attention to the injustice of two part
lowed to score on that hand If one of the ad-
versaries held 12 and the other adversary IA
cards. and suggested that additional legislA-
ton was desirable in such case. Law 10,
American CODE has dealt with this case much
in the manner I suggested.
Fourth-At page 3S of the same book called
attention to the fact that when = penalty can
+, be enacted, such ascalling lead, the player on
the right of the leader ought to be the one to
enact the penalty.
This has been adopted as law by the Amer
lean code. (See law 24.)
This is OF course gratifying to me to find that
although these suggestions have been ignored
in England. they have been adopted in Amer
lea.
In whist OF June and November. 1895. l
yeutured to offer one or two suggestions rela-
tive to slight alterations in the American
laws
First-As the value of the game Is deter
mined by deducting the losers score from z
(law H. the penalty for revoke may be nil.
For example: North and South are at the
score of 5, East and West. at 9. North and
South win two by cards and game; East and
West have revoked. By rule 80 two tricks
can be tranferred from East and West to
North ana South, but this makes no difference
in the value OF the game, es North and South
were game without the aid OF the revoke
hence no penalty can be inflicted on East and
West for their revoke.
It seems to me that the following slight
alteration In law 80 would meet such . case.
Law 80:
"The penalty for revoking is the transfer Of
| two tricks from the revoking side to their
adversaries or deducting two from the score
| of the revoking Players" etc.
! BY law 20, section /:
J avery card forced upon the table otherwise