The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1897-01-21
FOR LOVERS OF Whist.
Howell Explains His Use of the
Term Convention"
A WORD ABOUT NATURAL LEADS.

Arbitrary and Artificial Methods Con-
dsmned-The Principle Upon Which the
Short Suit System Rests-A sharp Nap
For Mogul.
have referred to the lead Of small
card as call for trumps through an honor
turned as "a convention" 1t Is the only
Convention of more or less arbitrary
nature that we employ In the new game
of whist. A few writer's have appeared to
find great deal Of the purely conventional
In "Whist Openings" and their discov-
cries have surprised me not little 1t
has always been my desire Gas state on
page 154 of "whist Openings" second edi-
tion) to eliminate from the game every
thing Of purely arbitrary nature. That
is what understand by a "convention"-
q signal, or play, which is arbitrary or
empirical, and not natural outgrowth Of
the principles of the game Such 10 the
generally accepted meaning Of the term
"whist convention"
Let me illustrate. When a player, hold
ing the king, queen and small cards OF
suit, leads the king, and 1t Is won by the
adversary with the ace, or IL partner, hold
ing the ace himself, allows the king to
win, partner understands that the leader
holds the queen. Whys Because player
understanding the simplest rudiments OF
the game would not jeopardize tho king
by leading it from the top OF suit OF
which the other cards are all small. II he
has not the ace, his only excuse for leading
the king is to force the ace out OF the way
30 as to make his next best card, the queen,
good for trick. The play Is q natural
and logical one, requiring no predeter-
mined rule nor understanding between
partners. Because 1t ia natural and logical,
and not arbitrary nor empirical, the mea n
ing of the play-the inference to be drawn
from It's perfectly obvious to all the
other players. The play, therefore, cannot
properly be called a convention.
On the other hand, suppose the player
has the X, 9, 8, z, 6, 5 of a suit and wishes
to open 1t. Which Of the six cards would
he naturally choose to lead? Would not
the intelligent card player, unacquainted
with conventional whist, pick out the
lowest card of the suitP Experience has
shown that he would-that the natural
lead from the suit Is the 8. Conventional
whist, however, teaches us to lead, not tho
B, but the 2, from the given combination
that is, the Fourth best card, counting
from the top. This rule Is purely arbitrary.
In order that the meaning Of the play may
be distinct to the other players, they must
all know the rule. A player who had never
heard of the Fourth best" convention, no
matter how intelligent q card player he
might be, would never be able to fathom
| Che leaders intention In opening with the
| 2 rather than the 8. The play, In order tC
be intelligible, requires prior understand.
| ing and agreement among the players II
ls a convention, pure and simple
Now, when I recommend that long
plain suit be opened with small card only
In the presence Of accompanying strength
in trumps and re-entry, recommend
nothing arbitrary or artificial, for 10 10 a
principle of our game that unless the hand
does contain, besides the long suit, consid-
erable trump and re-entry strength u u
better to let tho long suit alone and open
q short one The principle may Be unsound.
A few of the dyed In the wool long suffers
believe that 1t r. Most Of the progressive
whist players Of the 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 1t as q principle
and upon 1t build up our system OF play,
the methods that we use cannot be called
conventional, nor, as one popular writer
delights to put 1t, wooden" We fOrmu-
late principle. We believe it to be log
ioal and true deduction from experience and
whist philosophy. It's tenor Is that the
player should not open long suit with a
small card unless the hand contains trump
and re-entry strength sufficient to render
IL probable that with reasonable assistance
from partner the suit may be established
and brought In. Now, suppose player
does open his hand with q small card from
plain suit. What should the other play
ers inferf Is 1t not that he must possess,
besides his long plain suit, considerable
trump and re-entry strength
fail to see anything arbitrary or con-
ventional either In the inference or In the
play itself. And when Mogul, the "a
nous English writer on whist, takes this
play for text upon which to preach q ser
mon against conventionalism, as he re-
Gently did In the London Field, can ex-
plain his attitude only by supposing that
he Is not acquainted with the fundamental
principles of our whist theory.
But to return to the proposition with
which we started desire to acknowledge
that the lead of small card as a call for
trumps from partner is, indeed, a conven-
ton, though not altogether empirical. II
Is what may be denominated logical oon-
vention, which Is founded upon principle,
but developed a step beyond that point.
Let us analyze the idea. An honor-say,
the queen-is turned / lead a small lay
card. BY so doing tell partner, without
any convention whatever, that hold con
siderable trump strength. I encourage
him to lead trumps. Should do 80 un-
less 1 held u trump that would beat the
turned honorp Probably not. Now comes
the step-the step beyond principle. In
celebrating our system of play we tell the
player that the card which he leads in this
situation absolutely must have the mean
ing that 1t probably should have. This is
the only arbitrary feature of the process.
The probability we agree to convert into a
certainty, and upon the certainty we estab-
lish the rule.
wonder II Mogul has received copy
of the latest edition Of Works whist OF