The Decline and Fall of Whist



这已经很晚了,你仍然醒了。让我们帮助睡眠援助一个年代eries devoted to curing insomnia with the dullest, most soporific texts available in the public domain. Tonight’s prescription: a chapter fromThe Decline and Fall of Whist,an 1884 book by John Petch Hewby.

Though Mathews (circA.D.1800)在两个短句中奠定了真正的丢弃原则:“如果在特朗普的弱者中,请将防护队保持在对手的诉讼上;如果强大,扔掉他们,“五十年后被”小学“所发现的”小学“,”旧的丢弃系统只是这个 - 当无法遵循西装时,让你的第一次丢弃来自你最弱的西装。“糟糕的糟糕的数学!但缺席总是错。

However, by a process of evolution, to the first step of which no exception can be taken, we are next told—(a)“当你从卡的秋季看出没有概率的概率,或者你的伴侣的长西装最初丢弃了你最好的保护诉讼。”“你必须扮演防守游戏。” -Cavendish.

Then, as the evolution proceeds, and we come to (b), we catch the first glimpse of the woody fibre, “for the sake of a short and easily remembered rule,” it is the fashion to say, “discard originally from your strong suit when the adversaries lead trumps, but this aphorism does not truly express the conditions.” (It does not indeed; far from it! for the adversaries may lead trumps and the strength may turn out on the other side; and why, under any circumstances, currency should be given to an erroneous fashion is a question I have repeatedly asked in vain), and here the pupils rush in, with that zeal which outruns discretion, overpower the master and cut the Gordian Knot with (c)strongest。Fourthly, I am informed whenever I take my walks abroad in Whist circles, (d)与特朗普对我宣布,我不仅必须从我最强壮的西装中丢弃,而且丢弃到我的伴侣 - 我想我的对手 - 我希望领导的西装,我们都在木头路面上的背部。

这是一个防守游戏吗?肯定是迂腐的疯狂!为什么我,在这些可怕的情况下,为亲爱的生活而战,呼吸最大的困难,将我的重要零件披露到一个强大而无数的敌人?我在哪里得到一个诉讼,我希望领导?为什么我要从使用我的常识来争吵 - 如果我有任何东西,如果我有任何和坚持顺从我的老朋友的一切,并且在你的尊重中,我都有最高尊重的人?如果祝你好运,我确实抱着一个非常强大的西装,我曾经能够通过丢弃它的头来指出这个事实;现在我被告知“你不能那样做;它不是游戏“ - 当游戏可能是什么;“它显示了过多的对手;”所以我在这个荒谬的困境中 - 如果我有一个非常强大的西装,我就会保持黑暗;如果我有一个西装,我希望通过剩下非常安静,我希望邀请我的伴侣让我在耙子下面让我成为第三球员。O tempora! O mores!

Bad in itself, and ensnaring to others, this outrageous latter-day discard is cowardly to a degree; for while it does no particular injury to the player with a strong hand, it knocks down and jumps upon the weak vessel.

What am I to do with a suit in which I hold absolutely nothing, say the two, three, four and five? Did the doctrinaires never hear of such a suit? One would imagine not. Am I to discard from king, queen and another, or from knave to four, in order to keep four cards like that? How about retaining every card of a powerful suit, regardless where the trumps may be, knowing that unless it can be brought in somehow or other, the game is gone? When I am compelled to discard from a weak five suit, is that an order to my partner to lead in a singly or doubly guarded king?

If these difficulties—and there are numbers of others—only occurred to me, with my natural modesty, I should consider myself the victim of some congenital defect; but this is not the case; far from it. The confusion on this head alone is awful, and what do the authorities teach us? I have already quoted Mathews and Cavendish on Whist; the second edition of Clay does not mention the forced discard, but it is mentioned in the last new andimproved用复仇版本:在这里,我学会了我的恐怖和惊讶的是“丢弃了”strongestsuit * * *is admirably explained and developed in the ‘Laws and Principles of Whist,’ by Cavendish。“

Now this statement, which was made in 1881, is puzzling. I have already pointed out that the “laws and principles of Whist” by Cavendish neither explain nor develope anything of the kind, admirably or otherwise, before and after that date, Cavendish inThe Fieldhas contradicted it in toto. His latest utterance, on which I can lay my hand, is this. “The aphorism—discard from your strong suit to an adverse trump lead is very imperfect”—as any aphorism, attempting to lay down a fixed law for such an intricate subject, is bound to be—“and misleading, and often gives rise to misunderstandings between partners as to the true character of the discard. A player should carefully consider the aspect of the game at the time the discard is made. With no indication to guide him, he may assume his partner’s first discard to be a protective one, if the adversaries have led, or called for trumps; but if, notwithstanding an adverse lead, he can place the command of trumps with his partner, or must so place it in order to save the game, he should assume the reverse.” Here, though somewhat verbose and obscure, he recognizes that the subject bristles all over with difficulty.

Now let us return for a moment to theimproved粘土。“从最强大的丢弃休息,以及在非常合理的论据上,伴侣被引导引导丢弃所指示的西装。”保护性丢弃是我伴侣的方向让我在诉讼中让我第三名球员可能看起来是合理的现代主义的,但这不是通常采取的观点;然后在制作他的高度令人讨厌的动物puris tuttalibus.,编辑器风了感谢Cavendish为他的Imprimatur

这样疯狂的方式谎言!什么洞穴?那里有多少个斗篷?肯定是一个洞穴的洞穴,而且有一个卡住的东西The Field; that makes two, on this point pretty much of one mind. Is there a third, who appears for one brief moment, without father, mother, or descent, mysterious as Melchizedek, just to contradict both his namesakes, and then disappears for ever in the ewigkeit? This conundrum is too much for me; I give it up…