WHIST, a game at cards. The etymology of the name is disputed ; probably it is of imitative origin, from "whist " (hist, hush, silence), the game being so named because of the silence required to play it attentively. Triumph In the 16th century a card game called triumph or trump or trump, (corrupted from " triumph") was commonly played in Eng-land. A game called trionfi is mentioned as early as 1526, and triumphus Hispanicus in 1541. La triomphe occurs in the list of games played by Gargantua (Rabelais, first half of 16th century). In Florio's Worlde of Wordes (1598) trionfo is defined as " the play called trump or ruff." It is probable that the game referred to by the writers quoted is la triomphe of the early editions of the Académie des Jeux. It is important to note that this game, called by Cotton " French ruff," is similar to écarté. " English ruff-and-honours," also described by Cotton, is similar to whist. If we admit that ruff and trump are convertible terms, of which there is scarcely a doubt, the game of trump was the precursor of whist. A purely English origin may, therefore, be claimed for trump (not la triomphe). No record is known to exist of the invention of this game, nor of the mode of its growth into ruff-and-honours, and finally into whist. The earliest reference to trump in Eng-lish is believed to occur in a sermon by Latimer, " On the Card," preached at Cambridge, in Advent, about the year 1529. He says, "The game that we play at shall be the triumph. . . . Now turn up your trump,. . . and cast your trump, your heart, on this card." The game of trump is frequently mentioned in the second half of the 16th century. In Gammer Gurton's Needle (1575) Dame Chat says, "We be fast set at trumpe." Eliot (Fruits for the French, 1593) calls trump "a verie common ale-house game." Rice (Invective against Vices, printed before 1600) observes that "renouncing the trompe and comming in againe " (i.e., revoking intentionally) is a common sharper's trick. Decker (Belman of London, 1608) speaks of the deceits practised at " tromp and such like games." Trump also occurs in Antony and Cleopatra (written about 1607), with other punning allusions to card-playing—_
"She, Eros, has Packed cards with Caesar, and false-played my glory Unto an enemy's triumph."—Act iv. sc. 12.
Euff-and Ruff-and-honours, if not the same game as trump, was
honours, probably the same with the addition of a score for the
four highest cards of the trump suit. A description of the
I game is first met with in The Compleat Gamester (1674)
by Charles Cotton. He states that ruff-and-honours (alias slamm) and whist are games very commonly known in England. It was played by four players with partners, and it was compulsory to follow suit when able. The cards ranked as at whist, and honours were scored as now. Twelve cards were dealt to each player, four being left in the stock. The top card of the stock was turned up for trumps. The holder of the ace of trumps was allowed to ruff, i.e., to take in the stock and to put out four cards from his hand. The game was played nine up ; and at the point of eight honours could be called, as at long whist. Cotton adds that at whist there was no stock. The deuces were put out and the bottom card was turned up for trumps. It is believed that the earliest mention of whist is by
Taylor, the Water Poet (Motto, 1621). He spells the word Whisk " whisk." The earliest known use of the present spelling is or wttist-in Hudibras, the Second Part (spurious), 1663. The word is then spelt indifferently whisk or whist for about half a century. Cotton (1674) spells it both ways. Seymour (Court Gamester, 1734) has "whist, vulgarly called whisk." While whist was undergoing this change of name, there was associated with it the additional title of swabbers (probably allied to sweep, or sweepstakes). Fielding (History of Mr Jonathan Wild) says that whisk-and-swab-bers was "the game then [1682] in chief vogue." Grose (Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1785) states that swabbers are the ace of hearts, knave of clubs, ace and duce of trumps at whist." The true function of the swabbers is not positively known; it is probable that the holders of these cards were entitled to receive a certain stake from the other players. Swabbers dropped out of general use during the 18th century. The points of the game rose from nine to ten ("nine in all," Cotton, 1725; "ten in all," Seymour, 1734, "rectified according to the present standard of play"). Simultaneously with this altera-tion, or closely following it, the entire pack of fifty-two cards was used, the deuces being no longer discarded. This improvement introduces the odd trick, an element of great interest in modern whist. Early in the 18th century whist was not a fashionable game. The Hon. Daines Bar-rington (Archseologia, vol. viii.) says it was the game of the servants' hall. Contemporary writers refer to it in a disparaging way, as being only fit for hunting men and country squires, and not for fine ladies or people of quality. According to Barrington, whist was first played on scien-tific principles by a party of gentlemen who frequented the Crown Coffee House in Bedford Row, London, about 1728. Crown They laid down the following rules :—" Lead from the Coffee strong suit; study your partner's hand; and attend to the ?^v* score." Shortly after the celebrated Edmond HOYLE (q.v.) published his Short Treatise (1742). It has been surmised by some that Hoyle belonged to the Crown Coffee House party. This, however, is only a conjecture. There is abundant evidence to show that, in the middle of the 18th century, whist was regularly played at the coffee houses of London and in fashionable society. And it is notorious that, ever since the time of Hoyle, the game has continued to increase in public estimation.
It will be of interest to mark the successive stages Cotton-through which whist has passed from the time of Cotton to the present day. The only suggestions as to play in Cotton are that, " though you have but mean cards in your own hand, yet you may play them so suitable to those in your partner's hand that he may either trump them or play the best of that suit;" also that " you ought to have a special eye to what cards are play'd out, that you may know by that means either what to play if you lead or how to trump securely and advantagiously." It appears from this that the main ideas were to make trumps by ruffing, to make winning cards, and to watch the fall of the cards with these objects. In the rules laid down by the Crown Coffee House school a distinct advance is to be noticed. Their first rule, " Lead from the strong suit," shows a know-ledge of the game only to be acquired by careful study, together with a long train of reasoning. The arguments in favour of the original strong-suit lead would be out of place here; they are to be found in any modern manual. Their second rule, " Study your partner's hand," though sound, is rather vague, and savours somewhat of a repeti-tion of Cotton. Their third rule, " Attend to the score," if amended into "Play to the score," is most valuable. From the Crown Coffee House school to Hoyle is rather Hoyle: a wide jump; but there is no intervening record. Whether or not Hoyle derived at least a part of his inspiration from

that school, certain it is that in his Short Treatise he en-dorsed and illustrated their rules. He also brought the doctrine of probabilities to bear on the game, and gave a number of cases which show a remarkable insight into the play. Two examples will suffice. He distinguishes between the lead of king from king, queen, knave, and one small card and of knave from king, queen, knave, and more than one small card. He also directs the third hand holding queen, ten, nine, and a small card to play the nine, not the small one, to his partner's lead of ace. This whist is so good, and so advanced, that even now, a hundred and fifty years later, only the very best players can be de-pended on to observe and profit by it. Payne. About 1770 was published Payne's Maxims for Playing the Game of Whist. The advance in this book is decided. Leading from five trumps, in the hope of bringing in your own or your partner's long suit, is made into a general rule. And here, for the first time, the rule with respect to returned leads is printed, viz., " In returning your partner's lead play the best you have, when you hold but three originally." This rule, of all elementary ones, is, according to Clay, "the most important for the observance of whist-players." Hoyle does not give any such rule for returned leads, whence it may be inferred that no settled practice prevailed in his Hat- day. Matthews's Advice to the Young Whist-Player (anon., thews. 1804) repeats the "maxims of the old school," with "ob-servations on those he thinks erroneous " and "with several new ones." Matthews's book was a valuable contribution to whist literature, but some of the maxims which he thinks erroneous are now generally allowed to be correct. Thus, he prefers leading a single card to opening a long weak suit, the modern practice being just the contrary. .-.i. He rejects leads from suits of three cards, except when the leader has reason to think it is his partner's suit; then he should " play off the highest, though the king or queen," and he adds, "N.B.—This is contrary to the general prac-tice, but undoubtedly right." Assuming his statement to be true, the general practice was evidently wrong. Matthews is sometimes credited with the discovery of the modern principle with regard to discarding. The old rule was always to discard from the weakest suit. The modern rule is to discard from the best protected suit when the opponents have the command of trumps. What Matthews does say is, " If weak in trumps, keep guard to your ad-versaries' suits; if strong, throw away from them." This advice, though good, does not amount to anything like a principle of play. Short Soon after Matthews wrote, the points of the game whist. were cut down from ten to five. Clay's account of this change is that, about the beginning of the 19th century, Lord Peterborough having lost a large sum of money, the players proposed to make the game five up, in order to give the loser a chance of recovering his loss. The new game, short whist, was found to be so lively that it soon became general, and eventually superseded the long game. This produced in 1835 Short Whist by "Major A." "Major A." is only Matthews done into short whist by a literary hack, who substituted " five " for " ten," and so on through-out. The book would not call for notice here, but that Major A. was regarded as the authority on whist for a considerable time, probably because it was erroneously supposed that the author was the well-known Major Aubrey, one of the best players of his day. Similarly " Ccelebs " (Laws and Practice of Whist, 1851), who mainly repeats former writers, only calls for mention because he first printed in his second edition (1856) an explanation of the call for trumps. Calling for trumps was first recog-nized as part of the game by the players at Graham's Club about 1840. Long whist may be said to have died about the same time that Major A.'s book was published.
The new game necessarily caused a change in the style of play, as recorded by James Clay in The Laws of Short Clay. Whist, and a Treatise on the Game (1864). That dis-tinguished player says that, when he first remembered whist, its celebrities were for the most part those who had been educated at long whist. In his judgment the old school was very accurate and careful, but was wanting in the dash and brilliancy of the best modern players, and sinned by playing what is now called a backward game.
Whist then travelled, and about 1830 some of the best French French whist-players, with Deschapelles at their head, whist-modified and improved the old-fashioned system. They were but little influenced by the traditions of long whist, and were not content merely to imitate the English. The French game was the scorn and horror of the old school, who vehemently condemned its rash trump leads. Those who adopted the practice of the new school were, however, found to be winning players. By way of example, the English player of the old school never thought of playing to win the game before it was saved; the French player never thought of saving the game until he saw he could not win it. As between the two systems, Clay preferred the rash attack to the cautious defence, and recommended a middle course, leaning more to the new than to the old doctrine.
Dr Pole (Philosophy of Whist, 1883) remarks that the long experience of adepts had led to the introduction of many improvements in detail since the time of Hoyle, but that nothing had been done to reduce the various rules of the game to a systematic form until between 1850 and 1860, when a knot of young men proceeded to a thorough investigation of whist, and in 1862 one of the members of this " little whist school" brought out a work, under the pseudonym of " Cavendish," which " gave for the first Caven-time the rules which constitute the art of whist-playing dis-according to the most modern form of the game." The little school was first brought prominently into notice by an article on whist in the Quarterly Review of January 1871. On the appearance of this article it was fiercely debated by the press whether the "little school" did any-thing extraordinary, whether they elaborated anything, or compassed anything, or advanced a science, or whether they drew their inspiration from external sources, and merely gave a systematic arrangement to what was well known and procurable before. It was finally allowed that the little school did originate something, as they were the first to give, logically and completely, the reasoning on which the principles of play are based. Whist had previously been treated as though the " art" of the game depended on the practice of a number of arbitrary conven-tions. But the fact is that all rules of whist-play depend upon and are referable to general principles. Hence, as soon as these general principles were stated, and the reasons for their adoption were argued, players began to discuss and to propose innovations on the previously established rules of play.
A critical examination of the more important proposals Discard-made since 1862 may here be appropriately introduced. mS-The older authorities laid down the rule, Discard from the weakest suit. It was shrewdly noticed that, when command of trumps was shown by the adversaries, the rule was more honoured in the breach than in the ob-servance, the reason being that, when the attack was ad-verse, the instinct of the player prompted him to guard his weak suits. Hence the rule was modified, and it be-came the practice to discard from the best protected suit when the command of trumps L with the opponents. There can be no doubt as to the soundness of this modern rule of play, and it has been generally accepted. It was sud-denly discovered that Matthews advanced a similar doctrine.

His pretensions to this distinction have already been ex-Echo of amined. Soon after this (1872) followed the echo of the call for can for trumps. Calling for trumps, as all whist-players trumps. jjn0W) is effected by throwing away an unnecessarily high card. When the lower card is subsequently played, a royal invitation is given to the partner to abandon his own game and to lead trumps, there being great strength in the caller's hand. In practice it was found for various reasons (for which manuals must be consulted) to be highly advantageous for the caller's partner to be able to indicate whether he also had numerical strength in trumps (i.e., a minimum of four). The rule was eventually adopted that the caller's partner with at least four trumps should, if he had an opportunity, call in response, or echo, by also throwing away an unnecessarily high card; of course, if he had the opportunity, and refrained from echoing, he had less than four trumps. This rule of play was not appreciated at the time; but now (1888) it has the adherence of all thoughtful players. Lead Contemporaneously with the echo, the lead of the pen-from ultimate card from suits of five or more cards was strenu-niate ' " ousty advocated in some quarters, and as strenuously card. opposed in others. Up to this date it had been the general practice, when leading a low card from a strong suit, to prefer the lowest card of the suit, irrespective of the number held. But some acute players departed from this rule when they held an intermediate sequence of three cards. Thus, with king, ten, nine, eight, two (intermediate sequence of ten, nine, eight), they would lead the eight in preference to the two, as a card of protection, in case the partner should happen to be very weak in the suit, when the eight must force an honour, whereas the two might enable the opponent to win the first trick with a six or a seven. Equally acute partners soon observed that, when a strong-suit player began with, say, an eight, and afterwards played a small card, the card must have been from a suit of at least five cards. As soon as this inference was established, the acute leader argued that, if he could show number in his strong suit (an important exhibition in modern whist), he need not confine this exhibition to those suits only in which he held an inter-mediate sequence. He contended that the right play is to lead the lowest but one (or the penultimate) from all suits containing five or more cards, with which the less advanced player would begin by leading the lowest. Then ensued the grand battle of the penultimate. The old players regarded it with the same " horror" as they had formerly displayed wdth respect to the French school, and even went so far as to stigmatize it as a private under-standing and as cheating. The next stock objection raised was that it was an innovation. These feeble arguments were soon disposed of. The method was accessible to every one through the medium of the press; and, as Clay (Short Whist, 1864) rightly observes, "It is fair to give your partner any intimation which could be given, if the cards were placed on the table, each exactly in the same manner as the others, by a machine, the players being out of sight and hearing each of the others." The more genuine stric-tures were that penultimate leads complicate the game, that they give no advantage to the players, and that they simulate leads from weak suits (from which the highest is led). It is very doubtful whether penultimate leads do complicate the game. But, admitting for the sake of argu-ment that they do, it is no objection to an intellectual pastime that it exercises the brains of the players. The question whether those who practise penultimate leads reap any advantage therefrom is one which can only be determined by experience. The best test is the habit of those who play for a stake. They all hope to win; they are not likely to persist obstinately in a practice by which
they find they gain nothing; and at the present moment (1888) there is scarcely a player of any ability who de-liberately rejects the penultimate lead when he has a partner capable of understanding it. Hence it may be inferred that the experience of some sixteen years has resulted in a decided feeling that penultimate leads are on the whole advantageous to those who practise them. The simulation of a lead from a weak suit has no locus standi if it is borne in mind that original leads are contemplated, and that the original lead of all good players is from a strong suit. James Clay, the greatest player of his day, was at first opposed to penultimate leads. When he had considered the full arguments for and against them, he "put them to the test of his individual experience, acknow-ledged their value, and did not hesitate to give his adhesion to them."
The consideration of the proper card to lead from five- Ante-card suits naturally led to that of the correct lead from penulti more than five cards, in the case of suits opened with a small card. General Drayson (Art of Practical Whist, 1879) was the first to lay down that six of a suit can be shown by leading the antepenultimate card. Thus, from queen, nine, seven, four, three, two of a suit he advised the lead of the four. General Drayson's proposal did not find favour with many players, though it distinctly follows where the penultimate from five is admitted.

Meanwhile, leads from high cards, having regard to the number held in the suit, had not escaped attention. Thus, from suits headed by ace, queen, knave it had always been the custom to lead ace, then queen, irrespective of num-ber. The third hand, holding king and small ones, was ex-pected to pass the queen. But, if the lead was from five cards or more, and the third hand held king and two small ones, this play often resulted in blocking the leader's strong suit. It was therefore held, after some discussion and tentative play, that with more than four of the suit the leader should proceed with knave after ace, in order to invite his partner to put on king, if it remained singly guarded. From this it follows that a similar distinction should be drawn as to the second lead from queen, knave, ten, according to the number of accompanying small cards. If the lead is from four cards only, queen should be led, then knave; if from more than four, queen, then ten. These innovations were introduced about 1874-75. It will be observed that the original idea in choosing a penulti-mate or antepenultimate card was to protect the suit, and that the original idea in choosing the higher or lower of two high indifferent cards was to give the partner the option of unblocking. Behind this there was seen to lie the collateral advantage of showing number. Hence these rules of play were frequently resorted to merely for the purpose of telling whether four or more than four cards of the suit selected to lead from were present in the hand of the original leader.

So | far the indicated method, sound enough in itself, Ameri-amounted only to the enunciation of modified rules of play. can It yet remained for some one to propound a constantleacis* method of treating all leads, and to classify the isolated rules so as to render it possible to lay down general principles. This was accomplished in 1883-84 by Nicholas Browse Trist of New Orleans, U.S.A.; and hence the method of leading reduced to form by him is known by the name of American leads. American leads propose a systematic course of play when opening and continuing the lead from the strong suit. First, with regard to a low card led. When you open a strong suit with a low card, lead your fourth best. When opening a four-card suit with a low card, the lowest, which is the fourth best, is the card selected. When opening a five-card suit with

a low card, the penultimate card is selected. Instead of calling it the penultimate, call it the fourth best. So with a six-card suit; but, instead of antepenultimate, say fourth best. And so on with suits of more than six cards : dis-regard all the small cards and lead the fourth best. Secondly, with regard to a high card led, followed by a low card. When you open a strong suit with a high card and next lead a low card, lead your original fourth best. The former rule was to proceed with the lowest. Thus, from ace, knave, nine, eight, seven, two the leader was expected to open with the ace, and then to lead the two. An American leader would lead ace, then eight. Thirdly, with regard to a high card led, followed by a high card. When you remain with two high indifferent cards, lead the higher if you opened a suit of four, the lower if you opened a suit of five or more. Examples have already been given of the cases of ace, queen, knave, &c, and of queen, knave, ten, &c. On the promulgation of these general principles another pitched battle followed, which raged with great fury. The objections urged against American leads are much the same as those against the penultimate, viz.,—(1) that they complicate the game, (2) that they seldom affect the result, (3). that the information afforded may be of more use to the opponents than to the leader's partner. The complication argument has but little foundation in fact. All an American leader asks his partner to observe is that, when he originally leads a low card, he holds exactly three cards higher than the one led; when he originally leads a high card, and next a low one, he still holds exactly two cards higher than the second card led; and when he originally leads a high card, and follows it with a high card, he indicates in many cases, to those who know the analysis of leads (as laid down in whist books), whether the strong suit consisted originally of four or of more than four cards. It cannot be denied that moderate players may lack the quick perception which will enable them to take full advantage of the information afforded; but that is no reason why better players should be deprived of the advantage, and it is no reason why the moderate player should not learn to speak the language of whist intelligibly, for the benefit of partners wTho do understand it. The answer to the effect-on-the-result argument is that American leads add but little which is new to the game. They only aim at consolidating the received prac-tice, and at extending a law of uniformity to cases not previously provided for. The who-gets-the-b*est-of-the-information argument is more difficult to meet. Under other whist conditions experience tells that it is advantageous in the long run to convey information of strength, notwithstanding its publication to the whole table. It is most improbable, therefore, that a player will be at a disadvantage by publishing too much and too precise information as to his strength. But it must be admitted that this is not necessarily a sequitur; long experience can only decide on which side the balance of advantage lies. Five years' experience is hardly enough. But it may be remarked that no instances are known of players who, having once adopted these leads, have voluntarily relinquished them.
The introduction of American leads rendered it neces-sary thoroughly to overhaul the received play of the second and third hands,—of the second hand, in consequence of the information given, as to when he should cover or pass the card led; of the third hand, for the same reason, when he should play to unblock his partner's long suit. A discussion of these refinements would be out of place here. It is to be found in Whist Developments, by " Cavendish " (1885).
A printed existence was first given to the laws of whist by Hoyle in 1743. The fourteen laws then issued were subsequently increased to twenty-four. These laws were the authority until 1760, when the members of White's and Saunders's Chocolate Houses revised them. The revised laws (nearly all Hoyle) were accepted by whist players for over a century, notwithstanding that they were very incomplete. In 1863 the Turf Club undertook to frame a more comprehensive code, and to solicit the co-operation of the Portland Club. The laws of short whist, approved by these two clubs, were brought out in 1864. They were at once adopted by numerous other clubs, and are now (1888) the standard by which all disputed points are decided.
LAWS OF WHIST.
The Rubber.—1. The rubber is the best of three games. If the first two games Rubber, be won by the same players, the third game is not played.
Scoring.—2. A game consists of five points. Each trick, above six, counts Scoring, one point.
3. Honours—i.e., ace, king, queen, and knave of trumps—are thus reckoned : if a player and his partner, either separately or conjointly, hold—(i.) the four honours, they score four points ; (ii.) any three honours, they score two points ; (iii.) only two honours, they do not score.
4. Those players who, at the commencement of a deal, are at the score of four, cannot score honours.
5. The penalty for a revoke takes precedence of all other scores; tricks score next; honours last.
6. Honours, unless claimed before the trump card of the following deal is turned up, cannot be scored.
7. To score honours is not sufficient: they must be called at the end of the hand; if so called, they may be scored at any time during the game.
8. The winners gain—(i.) a treble, or game of three points, when their adver-saries have not scored ; (ii.) a double, or game of two points, when their adversaries have scored less than three; (iii.) a single, or game of one point, when their adversaries have scored three or four.
9. The winners of the rubber gain two points (commonly called the rubber points), in addition to the value of their games.
Cutting.
; Formation of
; table, &c.
10. Should the rubber have consisted of three games, the value of the losers' game is deducted from the gross number of points gained by their opponents.
11. If an erroneous score be proved, such mistake can be corrected prior to the conclusion of the game in which it occurred, and such game is not con-cluded until the trump card of the following deal has been turned up.
12. If an erroneous score, affecting the amount of the rubber, be proved, such mistake can be rectified at any time during the rubber.
Cutting.—13. The ace is the lowest card.
14. In all cases every one must cut from the same pack.
15. Should a player expose more than one card, he must cut again. Formation of Table.—It). If there are more than four candidates, the players .
are selected by cutting, those first in the room having the preference. The i four who cut the lowest cards play first, and again cut to decide on partners. The two lowest play against the two highest; the lowest is the dealer, who has choice of cards and seats, and, having once made his selection, must abide by it. <
17. When there are more than six candidates, those who cut the two next lowest cards belong to the table, which is complete with six players. On the retirement of one of those six players, the candidate who cut the next lowest card has a prior right to any after-comer to enter the table.
Cutting Cards of Equal Value.—18. Two players cutting cards of equal value, unless such cards are the two highest, cut again ; should they be the two low-est, a fresh cut is necessary to decide which of those two deals.
19. Three players cutting cards of equal value cut again. Should the fourth (or remaining) card be the highest, the two lowest of the new cut are partners, the lower of those two the dealer. Should the fourth card be the lowest, the two highest are partners, the original lowest the dealer.
Cutting Out.—20. At the end of a rubber, should admission be claimed by any one or by two candidates, he who has, or they who have, played a greater number of consecutive rubbers than the others is, or are, out. But, when all have played the same number, they must cut to decide upon the out-goers; the highest are out.
Entry and Re-entry.— 21. A candidate wishing to enter a table must declare such intention prior to any of the players having cut a card, either for the purpose of commencing a fresh rubber or of cutting out.
22. In the formation of fresh tables those candidates who have neither belonged to, nor played at, any other table have the prior right of entry; the others decide their right of admission by cutting.
23. Any one quitting a table prior to the conclusion of a rubber may, with consent of the other three players, appoint a substitute in his absence during that rubber.
24. A player cutting into one table whilst belonging to another loses his right of re-entry into that latter, and takes his chance of cutting in as if he were a fresh candidate.
25. If any one break up a table, the remaining players have the prior right to him of entry into any other; and, should there not be sufficient vacancies at such other table to admit all those candidates, they settle their precedence by cutting.
Shuffling.—26. The pack must neither be shuffled below the table nor so that bnuming. the face of any card be seen.
27. The pack must not be shuffled during the play of the hand.
28. A pack, having been played with, must neither be shuffled by dealing it into packets nor across the table.
29. Each player has a right to shuffle, once only, except as provided by rule 32, prior to a deal, after a false cut, or when a new deal has occurred.
30. The dealer's partner must collect the cards for the ensuing deal, and has the first right to shuffle that pack.
31. Each player after shuffling must place the cards, properly collected and face downwards, to the left of the player about to deal.
32. The dealer has always the right to shuffle last; but, should a card or cards be seen during his shuffling or whilst giving the pack to be cut, he may be compelled to re-shuffle.
Tlie Deal.SS. Each player deals in his turn. The right of dealing goes to Deal, the left.
34. The player on the dealer's right cuts the pack, and in dividing it must not leave fewer than four cards in either packet. If in cutting or in replacing one of the two packets on the other a card be exposed, or if there be any con-fusion of the cards, or a doubt as to the exact place in which the pack was divided, there must be a fresh cut.
35. When a player, whose duty it is to cut, has once separated the pack, he cannot alter his intention: he can neither re-shuffle nor re-cut the cards.
36. When the pack is cut, should the dealer shuffle the cards, he loses his deal.

A New Deal.—37. There must he a new deal—(i.) if during a deal or during the play of a hand the pack be proved incorrect or imperfect; (ii.) if any card, excepting the last, be faced in the pack.
38. If whilst dealing a card be exposed by the dealer or his partner, should neither of the adversaries have touched the cards, the latter can claim a new deal. A card exposed by either adversary gives that claim to the dealer, pro-vided that his partner has not touched a card. If a new deal does not take place, the exposed card cannot be called.
39. If during dealing a player touch any of his cards, the adversaries may do the same, without losing their privilege of claiming a new deal, should, chance give them such option.
40. If in dealing one of the last cards be exposed, and the dealer turn up the trump before there is reasonable time for his adversaries to decide as to a fresh deal, they do not thereby lose their privilege.
41. If a player whilst dealing look at the trump card, his adversaries have a right to see it, and may exact a new deal.
42. If a player take into the hand dealt to him a card belonging to the other pack, the adversaries, on discovery of the error, may decide whether they will have a fresh deal or not.
A Misdeal.—43. A misdeal loses the deal.
44. It is a misdeal—(i.) unless the cards are dealt into four packets, one at a time in regular rotation, beginning with the player to the dealer's left; (ii.) should the dealer place the last (i.e., the trump) card face downwards on his own or any other pack ; (iii.) should the trump card not come in its regular order to the dealer; but he does not lose his deal if the pack be proved imper-fect; (iv.) should a player have fourteen cards and either of the other three less than thirteen; (v.) should the dealer, under an impression that he has made a mistake, count either the cards on the table or the remainder of the pack; (vi.) should the dealer deal two cards at once or two cards to the same hand, and then deal a third ; but if, prior to dealing that third card, the dealer can, by altering the position of one card only, rectify such error, he may do so, except as provided by the second paragraph of this law; (vii.) should the dealer omit to have the pack cut to him, and the adversaries discover the error prior to the trump card being turned up, and before looking at their cards, but not after having done so.
45. A misdeal does not lose the deal if during the dealing either of the adver-saries touch the cards prior to the dealer's partner having done so ; but, should the latter have first interfered with the cards, notwithstanding [that] either or both of the adversaries have subsequently done the same, the deal is lost.
46. Should three players have their right number of cards, the fourth have less than thirteen, and not discover such deficiency until he has played any of his cards, the deal stands good. Should lie have played, he is as answerable for any revoke he may have made as if the missing card or cards had been in his hand ; he may search the other pack for it or them.
47. If a pack during or after a rubber be proved incorrect or imperfect, such proof does not alter any past score, game, or rubber. That hand in which the imperfection was detected is null and void. The dealer deals again.
48. Any one dealing out of turn, or with the adversary's cards, may be stopped before the trump card is turned up, after which the game must proceed as if no mistake had been made.
49. A player can neither shuffle, cut, nor deal for his partner, without the permission of his opponents.
50. If the adversaries interrupt a dealer whilst dealing, either by questioning the score or asserting that it is not his deal, and fail to establish such claim, should a misdeal occur, he may deal again.
51. Should a player take his partner's deal and misdeal, the latter is liable to the usual penalty, and the adversary next in rotation to the player who ought to have dealt then deals.
The Trump Card.—-52. The dealer, when it is his turn to play to the first trick, should take the trump card into his hand. If left on the table after the first trick be turned and quitted, it is liable to be called. His partner may at any time remind him of the liability.
53. After the dealer has taken the trump card into his hand it cannot be asked for. A player naming it at any time during the play of that hand is liable to have his highest or lowest trump called.
54. If the dealer take the trump card into his hand before it is his turn to play, he may be desired to lay it on the table. Should he show a wrong card, this card may be called, as also a second, a third, &c, until the trump card be produced.
55. If the dealer declare himself unable to recollect the trump card, his highest or lowest trump may be called at any time during that hand, and, un-less it cause him to revoke, must be played. The call may be repeated, but not changed, i.e., from highest to lowest, or vice versa, until such card is played.
Cards Liable to be Called.—56. All exposed cards are liable to be called, and must be left on the table; but a card is not an exposed card when dropped on the floor, or elsewhere below the table. The following are exposed cards :—(i.) two or more cards played at once ; (ii.) any card dropped with its face upwards, or in any way exposed on or above the table, even though snatched up so quickly that no one can name it.
57. If any one play to an imperfect trick the best card on the table, or lead one which is a winning card as against his adversaries, and then lead again, or play several such winning cards one after the other, without waiting for his partner to play, the latter may be called on to win, if he can, the first or any other of those tricks, and the other cards thus improperly played are ex-posed cards.
58. If a player or players, under the impression that the game is lost or won, or for other reasons, throw his or their cards on the table face upwards, such cards are exposed, and liable to be called, each player's by the adver-sary ; but, should one player alone retain his hand, he cannot be forced to abandon it.
59. If all four players throw their cards on the table face upwards, the hands are abandoned, and no one can again take up his cards. Should this general exhibition show that the game might have been saved, or won, neither claim can be entertained, unless a revoke be established. The revoking players are then liable to the following penalties: they cannot unaer any circumstances win the game by the result of that hand, and the adversaries may add three to their score, or deduct three from that of the revoking players.
60. A card detached from the rest of the hand so as to be named is liable to be called ; but, should the adversary name a wrong card, he is liable to have a suit, called when he or his partner have the lead.
61. If a player, who has rendered himself liable to have the highest or lowest of a suit called, fail to play as desired, or if, when called on to lead one suit, [he] lead another, having in his hand one or more cards of that suit demanded, lie incurs the penalty of a revoke.
62. If any player lead out of turn, his adversaries may either call the card erroneously led, or may call a suit from him or his partner when it is next the turn of either of them to lead.
63. If any player lead out of turn, and the other three have followed him, the trick is complete, and the error cannot be rectified. But, if only the second or the second and third have played to the false lead, their cards, on discovery of the mistake, are taken back ; there is no penalty against any one, excepting the original offender, whose card may be called, or he or his partner, when either of them has next the lead, may be compelled to play any suit demanded by the adversaries.
64. In no case can a player be compelled to play a card which would oblige
him to revoke.
65. The call of a card may be repeated until such card has been played.
66. If a player called on to lead a suit have none of it, the penalty is paid.
Cards Played in Error, or not Played to a Trick.—67. If the third hand play Cards
before the second, the fourth hand may play before his partner. played in
68. Should the third hand not have played, and the fourth play before his A J partner, the latter may be called on to win or not to win the trick. error.
69. If any one omit playing to a former trick, and such error be not discovered until he has played to the next, the adversaries may claim a new deal. Should they decide that the deal stand good, the surplus card at the end of the hand is considered to have been played to the imperfect trick, but does not consti-tute a revoke therein.
70. If any one play two cards to the same trick, or mix his trump, or other card, with a trick to which it does not properly belong, and the mistake be not discovered until the hand is played out, he is answerable for all consequent revokes he may have made. If during the play of the hand the error be de-tected, the tricks may be counted face downwards, in order to ascertain whether there be among them a card too many. Should this be the case, they may be searched, and the card restored ; the player is, however, liable for all revokes which he may have meanwhile made.
The Revoke.—71. [This] is when a player, holding one or more cards of the suit Revoke, led, plays a card of a different suit.
72. The penalty for a revoke—(i.) is at the option of the adversaries, who at the end of the hand may either take three tricks from the revoking player, or deduct three points from his score, or add three to their own score; (ii.) can be claimed for as many revokes as occur during the hand ; (iii.) is applic-able only to the score of the game in which it occurs ; (iv.) cannot be divided, i.e., a player cannot add one or two to his own score and deduct one or two from the revoking player; (v.) takes precedence of every other score, e.g.,—the claimants two, their opponents nothing—the former add three to their score, and thereby win a treble game, even should the latter have made thirteen tricks and held four honours.
73. A revoke is established, if the trick in which it occur be turned and quitted, i.e., the hand removed from that trick after it has been turned face downwards on the table, or if either the revoking player or his partner, whether in his right turn or otherwise, lead or play to the following trick.
74. A player may ask his partner whether he has not a card of the suit which he has renounced. Should the question be asked before the trick is turned and quitted, subsequent turning and quitting does not establish the revoke, and the error may be corrected, unless the question be answered in the negative, or unless the revoking player or his partner have led or played to the following trick.
75. At the end of the hand, the claimants of a revoke may search all the tricks.
76. If a player discover his mistake in time to save a revoke, the adversaries, whenever they think fit, may call the card thus played in error, or may require him to play his highest or lowest card to that trick in which he has renounced. Any player or players who have played after him may withdraw their cards and substitute others. The cards withdrawn are not liable to be called.
77. If a revoke be claimed, and the accused player or his partner mix the cards before they have been sufficiently examined by the adversaries, the revoke is established. The mixing of the cards only renders the proof of a revoke difficult, but does not prevent the claim, and possible establishment, of tha penalty.
78. A revoke cannot be claimed after the cards have been cut for the follow-ing deal.
79. The revoking player and his partner may, under all circumstances, require the hand in which the revoke has been detected to be played out.
80. If a revoke occur, be claimed, and proved, bets on the odd trick or on amount of score must be decided by the actual state of the latter after the penalty is paid.
81. Should the players on both sides subject themselves to the penalty of one or more revokes, neither can win the game; each is punished at the dis-cretion of his adversary.
82. In whatever way the penalty be enforced, under no circumstances can a player win the game by the result of the hand during which he has revoked; he cannot score more than four. (Vide rule 61.)
Calling for New Cards.—S3. Any player (on paying for them) before, but not after, the pack be cut for the deal may call for fresh cards. He must call for two new packs, of which the dealer takes his choice.
General Rules.—84. Where a player and his partner have an option of exact- General ing from their adversaries one of two penalties, they should agree who is to rupL,s make the election, but must not consult with one another which of the two penalties it is advisable to exact. If they do so consult, they lose their right; and if either of them, with or without consent of his partner, demand a penalty to which he is entitled, such decision is final. This rule does not apply in ex-acting the penalties for a revoke; partners have then a right to consult.
85. Any one during the play of a trick, or after the four cards are played, and before, but not after, they are touched for the purpose of gathering them to-gether, may demand that the cards be placed before their respective players.
86. If any one, prior to his partner playing, should call attention to the trick—either by saying that it is his, or by naming his card, or, without being required so to do, by drawing it towards him—the adversaries may require that opponent's partner to play the highest or lowest of the suit then led, or to win or lose the trick.
87. In all cases where a penalty has been incurred, the offender is bound to give reasonable time for the decision of his adversaries.
88. If a bystander make any remark which calls the attention of a player or players to an oversight affecting the score, he is liable to be called on, by the players only, to pay the stakes and all bets on that game or rubber.
89. A bystander by agreement among the players may decide any question.
90. A card or cards torn or marked must be either replaced by agreement, or new cards called at the expense of the table.
91. Any player may demand to see the last trick turned, and no more. Under no circumstances can more than eight cards be seen during the play of the hand, viz., the tour cards on the table which have not been turned and quitted, and the last trick turned.
ETIQUETTE OF WHIST.
The following rules belong to the established etiquette of whist. They are Etiquette not called laws, as it is difficult, in some cases impossible, to apply any penalty Qc wT,;ct to their infraction, and the only remedy is to cease to play with players who niJvw habitually disregard them.
Two packs of cards are invariably used at clubs; if possible this should be adhered to.
Any one having the lead, and several winning cards to play, should not draw
a second card out of his hand until his partner has played to the first trick, ^
such act being a distinct intimation that the former has played a winning card.
No intimation whatever by word or gesture should be given by a player as to the state of his hand or of the game.

A player who desires the cards to be placed, or who demands to see the last trick, should do it for his own information only, and not in order to invite the attention of his partner.
No player should object to refer to a bystander who professes himself unin-terested in the game, and able to decide any disputed question of facts,—as to who played any particular card, whether honours were claimed though not scored, or vice versa, &c.
It is unfair to revoke purposely: having made a revoke, a player is not justi-fied in making a second in order to conceal the first.
Until the players have made such bets as they wish, bets should not be made with bystanders.
Bystanders should make no remark, neither should they by word or gesture give any intimation of the state of the game until concluded and scored, nor should they walk round the table to look at the different hands.
No one should look over the hand of a player against whom he is betting.
DUMMY.
"Dummy. Dummy is played by three players. One hand, called dummy's, lies exposed on the table. The laws are the same as those of whist, with the following exceptions:—(i.) dummy deals at the commencement of each rubber; (ii.) dummy is not liable to the penalty for a revoke, as his adversaries see his cards ; should he revoke and the error not be discovered until the trick is turned and quitted, it stands good ; (iii.) dummy being blind and deaf, his partner is not liable to any penalty for an error whence he can gain no advantage: thus, he may expose some or all of his cards, or may declare that he has the game or trick, &c, without incurring any penalty ; if, however, he lead from dummy's hand when he should lead from his own, or vice versa, a suit may be called from the hand which ought to have led.
Double Dummy.—[This] is played by two players, each having a dummy or ex-
posed hand for his partner. The laws of the game do not differ from dummy
whist, except in the following special law:—there is no misdeal, as the deal is
a disadvantage. (H. J.)





Footnotes

Preface by the editors to Clay's Short Whist, 1881.
XXIV. — 69
Preface by the editors to Clay's Short Whist, 1881.
XXIV. — 69
Preface by the editors to Clay's Short Whist, 1881.
XXIV. — 69

From the club code, edited by J. L. Baldwin, by permission of Messrs. De La Rue and Co,

and Co,
From the club code, edited by J. L. Baldwin, by permission of Messrs. De La Rue and Co,