The Fourth Hand
The fourth player having, with a few exceptions, merely to win the trick, if against him, his play involves no further development of general principles.
The exceptional cases, where the fourth hand should not win the trick though he can, or should win his partner’s trick in order to get the lead, depend so much on the previous fall of the cards, that they can best be illustrated in the hands.
The Command of Suits
(See also Appendix B., pp. 287-8.)
In the foregoing chapters it has been incidentally stated that you should
9. Keep the Command of Your Adversary’s Suit: And 10. Get Rid of the Command of Your Partner’s Suit
The reasons will be obvious to those who are familiar with the previous pages; in the first case, you obstruct the adversaries’ suits, and prevent their establishing them; in the second case, you assist in clearing the suit for your partner.
Thus, with ace and queen only of a suit led by your partner, if you win with the queen, play out the ace at once; but, if the suit is led by your adversary, keep the ace in your hand. If you play out the winning card of the opponent’s suit in hopes of trumping the next round, which is often done by those who play a trumping game, you do just what the adversaries want; for the lead of the ace gives them valuable assistance towards bringing in their suit when trumps are out.
Though the advantage of getting rid of the command of a suit, of which your partner has declared numerical strength, is recognised theoretically, the application of the principle is much neglected in practice. In order to get rid, at the proper moment, of the command of your partner’s suit, a thorough knowledge of the Analysis of Leads is requisite, as the following examples will show:—1. Your partner leads ace, originally, of a plain suit. He has led from ace, queen, knave, &c., or from a suit of five cards at least. You have four of the suit, say ten, nine, eight, two. To his ace, you should play the eight, not the two. All follow suit, and your partner continues with knave, or with a small card. You now know for certain that he led from five at least. You should play the nine, even if the second hand puts on a winning card or a trump. When the suit is led again, you should play the ten. Your partner is left with two small cards, and you do not block his suit; if you had played two, eight, nine, it is very probable that you would keep the command of the suit with the ten. 2. If instead of ten, nine, eight, two, you held, say, ten, nine, three, two, and your partner leads ace and a small one, you should similarly play the nine on the second round. 3. If your partner led from ace, queen, knave and one small one (as you will be informed by his leading queen after ace), you cannot block the suit; but, if you have played the eight to the ace, as in Example 1, you must still play the nine to the queen, or you have called for trumps (see p. 125). You lose nothing by this, as you and your partner still retain the winning cards of the suit. If on the third round you find it necessary to play your small card, you have not called for trumps (see Appendix B, pp. 287-8). 4. Similarly, you have king, queen, and two small cards of a plain suit of which your partner leads ace and a small one. All follow suit to the ace; the second hand trumps the small one. You should play the queen, and to the third round the king. 5. Your partner leads knave of a plain suit originally, from king, queen, knave, and at least two small cards. The second hand plays a small card. You (third hand) hold ace, &c. Whether or not you should put on the ace, depends on the number of small cards you hold. Having only one small card, you should play the ace, that you may not block the suit. Having more than one small card, you pass the knave. Suppose the knave wins the trick, and your partner continues with king or queen. If you now remain with ace and one small card, you should put on the ace; but, if you have ace and two small cards left, you should pass again, as you still have the power of getting rid of the command on the third round. 6. To continue the previous example. Say the two rounds of your partner’s suit have resulted in the fall of seven cards of it, and that you still have ace and a small one left. Your adversary now leads the suit a third time, that his partner may trump it. You should play the ace, keeping the small card of the suit of which your partner will still hold two cards. 7. If your partner leads a small card of a plain suit originally, and you can tell from the fall of the cards that the card led was not his absolute lowest, you know he led from a suit of more than four (see Analysis of Leads), and if you had four originally, you should be prepared to get rid of the command on the subsequent rounds. For example:—Your partner leads eight. All follow suit, and the queen falls. On obtaining the lead again, your partner leads the six, showing that he led from at least five cards. Ace comes out. One adversary does not follow suit. You held, originally, knave, five, four, three, and have played the three and the four. Your partner now has the lead again, and leads the king of his suit. You, holding knave and one small one, would play very badly to retain the knave. You should throw the knave on the king, and your partner’s suit is freed. 8. Your hand contains four cards, viz., ace and one small spade (spades not having been led), and two losing diamonds; your partner has nothing but spades, of which he leads the king. If you pass it you cannot make more than two tricks, for the winning diamonds are against you in one hand; but, if you win your partner’s king, and return the small one, and your partner has led from king, queen, you still win two tricks, and get a chance of making three or four.
A collateral advantage of playing as advised, is that a good partner will often know how many of his suit you still have in hand. Thus, he leads knave, which you pass; he continues with queen, which you win. It ought to be a certainty that you remain with one small card of his suit and no more. If you pass again, it should be equally certain, when your ace comes down in the third round, that you have one small card of the suit in hand. Again: your partner leads ace and knave; knave is won by the adversary with the king. You, holding ten, nine, eight, deuce, have played eight and nine of the suit. If the winner of the trick does not lead a trump, your partner would infer, with tolerable certainty, that you remain with the deuce and ten of his suit, as no one is asking for trumps (see p. 125) and no one has played the deuce in two rounds.
In trumps, the case is somewhat different, as you cannot block your partner’s trump suit. It is then only advisable to get out of his way, if you see from the fall of the cards that it is essential he should proceed with trumps. Thus: with ace and one small trump you would not put ace on his knave led, unless very desirous of three rounds of trumps immediately. Moreover, in trumps, your partner can count your hand in another way; for with four trumps you would echo, as will be fully explained under Management of Trumps (p. 128).
You help your partner to get rid of the command of your suit by leading the lowest of a sequence, notwithstanding that it heads your suit, when you want him to win your card if he can. For this reason you lead ten from king, queen, knave, ten; ace, knave from ace, queen, knave, and at least two small cards; and so on. In this last case, if your partner has king, whether he should put it on your knave, or not, depends on how many small cards of the suit he holds. If, when you lead knave, he remains with king and one small one, he should win the knave with the king; but if he has king and two small ones remaining, he should pass the knave, for precisely the same reasons as those given in the previous examples. Again, suppose you are left with knave, ten, and others of a suit, of which your partner can only have king and another (ace and queen being out), though it is uncertain whether he does hold the king. You would cause him to get rid of the king by leading the ten; whereas, if you led the knave, he probably would not part with the king.
Experienced players frequently endeavour to steal a trick, or to obtain the entire command of a suit (i.e., to keep a sufficient number of winning or commanding cards in it to make every trick), by underplaying. Underplay is keeping up the winning card, generally in the second round of a suit, by leading a low card, though holding the best.
Thus, suppose a small trump is led, and you (fourth player) hold ace, knave, and two small ones, and you win with one of the small ones. If, at a later period of the hand, you return a small trump, you will very likely cause your left-hand adversary to believe that your partner has the ace; consequently, if your left-hand adversary has the king, he may not put it on; your partner will win the second round with the queen, and you will retain the command of the trump suit.
Underplay is an extempore stratagem depending on observation of the previous fall of the cards, and, therefore, best capable of explanation by examples. Thus: A, finding his partner strong in trumps, leads the seven. The king is put on by Y (second hand), which B (third hand) wins, holding ace, queen, ten, nine, eight. It is evident to B that A’s seven was his highest trump, as the only higher one in is the knave, and A would never lead the seven from knave, seven. The king having been put on second hand, B concludes that Y, in all probability, holds at most one small trump more. The knave is, to a moral certainty, in Z’s hand. B, by leading the eight in the second round, will probably win the trick, and unless Z had four trumps originally, will catch the knave with the queen in the third round. (Further examples of underplay occur in the hands.)
Players should be on their guard against this manœuvre, particularly when second hand, in the second round of a suit, they hold the second best card guarded, and the adversary has been playing a strong game (as by leading trumps), and is left with the long trump, or is certain to be able to obtain the lead again. Then it is often right for the second hand to stick on a singly-guarded second best card, especially if that is the only chance of making it. In the case stated in the previous paragraph, Z’s only chance of making the knave, if singly guarded, is to put it on second hand. For, if the queen with small ones is in A’s hand, A is sure to finesse on the return of the suit by his partner. Again, take this case: A leads the six of diamonds; Y, with knave, ten, and a small one, puts on the ten; B plays the king, and Z wins it with the ace. Presently, A obtains the lead again, and leads the eight of diamonds. A, having led the lowest of his suit in the first round, it may be inferred that he has led from a strong suit—headed in this case by the queen—and that he is underplaying with, probably, queen and nine in his hand. Y should observe this, and in the second round should win the eight with the knave.
Refusing to play the winning card in the first and second rounds of a suit—commonly called holding up—is, in fact, a species of underplay. For example:—1. Trumps are led by the player to your left; the third player wins with the ace, and returns the suit through your hand. If you are left with king and one or more small ones, you should play a small one, unless the circumstances of the hand are such that you deem it advantageous to stop the trump lead. The original trump leader, not knowing but that the king is in your partner’s hand, will probably finesse, and your partner thus has a chance of making the third best trump, even though unguarded. If your partner has neither second nor third best trump, no harm is done, as you will then probably make but one trick in the suit, however you play. 2. Again, ten tricks are played, and each player is left with three cards of a suit not opened. If the second player puts on the queen (from which it may be inferred that he holds the king also), the third hand should not cover with the ace. For, by winning the trick, he must lead up to king guarded; but, by passing it, he leaves the lead with the second player, and takes the best chance of making two tricks. 3. One more example will suffice: A has the last trump, and ace, ten, and three small cards of a suit not led. The adversary now leads the king, and follows with the queen of that suit. A should pass them both; by so doing he will probably make three tricks in the suit if the cards are equally divided.
Discarding
When you cannot follow suit, you should
11. Discard From Your Weakest Suit
You weaken a suit by discarding from it, and lessen the number of long cards you might otherwise establish and bring in (i.e., make tricks with if trumps are out, and you obtain the lead after the establishment of your suit). On the other hand, you do but little harm by throwing from a suit in which you are already weak. Your partner should understand that your first or original discard is from your weakest suit, just as he understands that your original lead is from your strongest suit.
But, as in the case of leads, you are sometimes obliged to lead from a weak suit, or to make a forced lead, so sometimes you have to make a forced discard. Forced discards require much more careful consideration than they generally receive.
It is clear that if the opponents declare great strength in trumps (by leading trumps or asking for them, as will be fully explained in Section 13), that your chance of bringing in a suit is practically nil. You should therefore, in such cases, abandon the tactics you would otherwise adopt, and play to guard your weaker suits, by discarding from your best protected suit, which is generally your longest suit. You must, in fact, play a defensive game.
If this system of discarding is comprehended by the two players who are partners, it follows, as a matter of course, that when trumps are not declared against you, your partner will assume you are weak in the suit you first discard; but, when trumps are declared against you, he will give you credit for strength in the suit from which you originally throw away. This is most important, as it affects his subsequent leads. In the first case, he will refrain from leading the suit from which you have discarded; in the second, he will, unless he has a very strong suit of his own, select for his lead the suit in which you have shown strength by your discard.
It is commonly said, “Discard from your strong suit when the adversary leads or calls for trumps.” But this is a very imperfect and misleading aphorism. If you have no indications from the play, and are obliged to discard to an adverse trump lead or call, you should discard from your best protected suit. But, if you have, or if the fall of the cards shows that your partner has, sufficient strength in trumps to outlast the adversary, the discard should be from the weak suit. Thus: Y, second player, calls for trumps (see p. 125), and B, third player, also calls. The discards of A and Z should be from their weak suits. For though, on the one hand, great strength in trumps is declared against them, on the other hand great strength is also declared with them. Again: Z deals and turns up nine of clubs. A (the original leader) leads a small club; Y follows suit; B puts on ace; Z plays king. This shows that Z has a sequence of queen, knave, ten, nine of trumps; and therefore that, though A has led a trump, he has anything but the command of the suit. B returns the trump; Z wins; Y has no more trumps. His discard should be from his weakest suit. The following case is less easy:—The adversary (A) leads a tierce major in trumps, eleven trumps come out, and your partner (Y) must have knave of trumps to save the game. You now credit your partner with the command of trumps, though the adversary has led them; and if either you (Y) or your partner (Z) has to discard, the discard should be from the weakest suit (see Hand XII.) Similar remarks apply if a strengthening trump is led by an adversary from weak trumps and good cards in plain suits.
It must be borne in mind that it is only your original discard which is directive. Having once discarded, you cannot undo your work by any number of discards from another suit. Also, having once led a suit, you have declared strength in it; and subsequent discards from that suit do not alter the fact that it was originally your strongest suit.
It is dangerous to unguard an honour, or to blank an ace; and, also, to discard a single card when the game is in an undeveloped stage, as it exposes your weakness almost as soon as the suit is led. But, when you see that there is a probability of strength in trumps on your side, direct your partner to your strong suit by all the means in your power, and unhesitatingly unguard an honour, or throw a single card. Of course, if strength in trumps is against you, these are the very last cards you should think of throwing away.
When your left-hand adversary will have the lead next round, if you discard from a suit in which you hold a tenace, you may possibly induce him to lead that suit up to you. You must be on your guard against this ruse, and not necessarily lead up to the discard of your right-hand opponent.
The same principle applies to trumping as to discarding. The weaker you are in trumps, the better it is for you to make a little one by trumping, as will be further explained in Section 14.
The Conversation of the Game
12. Afford Information by Your Play
It has several times been assumed in the preceding pages that you should convey information by your play. The question naturally arises, How is it that a player gains any advantage by publishing information to the table? It is often argued, and with much show of reason, that as almost every revelation concerning your hand must be given to the whole table, and that as you have two adversaries and only one partner, you publish information at a disadvantage. No doubt this argument would have considerable force if you were compelled to expose the whole of your hand. But you possess the power, to a great extent, of selecting what facts shall be announced and what concealed.
Experienced players are unanimous in admitting that it is an advantage to inform your partner of strength in your own suits, though some advise concealment of strength in suits in which the adversaries have shown strength. Thus, with ace, king, second hand, the usual play is to put on the king. The third hand does not win the king, and hence the leader is able to infer that the ace of his strong suit is against him. But, if you put on the ace second hand, you prevent the leader from discovering where the king of his suit lies. It is, however, found that two honours in the adversary’s suit constitute sufficient strength to make it advantageous in the long run to proclaim your force; while, with less strength, it is not easy to mystify the opponents prejudicially; so that, on the whole, it seldom happens that a balance of gain results from the adoption of deceptive play.
Occasionally, however, a false card may be played with a special object. For instance: ace is turned up to your right, and, when the dealer gets in, he leads a small trump. If you, second hand, have king, queen only, you would be justified in playing the king, in hopes of inducing the trump leader to finesse on the return of the suit. Or, take this case: your left-hand adversary leads originally the five of his strong suit, from king, ten, seven, five. Your partner plays the six; third hand plays ace. You, holding queen, knave, nine, eight, four, three, play the three. Your right-hand opponent now leads trumps; all the trumps come out. The player to your right next returns the deuce of his partner’s suit. The original lead being from a four-card suit, king, ten, seven, remain in the leader’s hand. If you play knave, the original leader will place queen in your hand, and will hesitate to go on with the suit. But, if you play queen, he will put knave and at least one small one in his partner’s hand. Then if, under this impression, he continues the suit, you bring it in.
It is in most cases unquestionably disadvantageous to you that the whole table should be aware of your being very weak in a particular suit, and, consequently, information of weakness should be withheld as long as possible. If you are led up to fourth hand in such a suit, or if your partner opens the suit with a small card, of course the disclosure is inevitable; but until one of these events happens your poverty can generally be kept out of sight. It may happen that you are occasionally forced to lead a weak suit yourself; and in this event the least disadvantage, on the whole, is to tell the truth at once, by first leading the highest of it. Your partner apprised of the state of your hand, by the fall of your smaller card in the subsequent round, will probably deem it prudent to strive by defensive tactics to avert total defeat in that suit, rather than to contend single-handed against the combined strength of the opponents. But, at critical points of the game, it is often right to conceal weakness. Thus, towards the end of a hand, it is necessary that your partner should make a couple of tricks in an unopened suit, of which you hold two or three little cards. You should lead the lowest. If you lead the highest, the adversaries will suspect your weakness at once, and will be sure of it on the second round. Their efforts will then be directed to preventing your partner from making the required tricks in that suit. Your left-hand adversary will not finesse; and if your partner is led through, your right-hand adversary merely covers, or plays the lowest card he has, higher than the one you first led.
When your partner has exhibited weakness in one or more suits, you would frequently be justified in playing a false card. You are driven to rely solely on yourself, and are entitled to adopt every artifice your ingenuity can suggest in order to perplex the other side. The consideration that you may mislead your partner will no longer influence you, as you know him to be powerless for good or for evil.
You inform your partner by following the recognised practice of the game, as by leading from your strong suit originally, by leading the highest of a sequence, by following suit with the lowest of a sequence, and so forth. If you adhere to this you will soon acquire a reputation for playing a straightforward intelligible game; and this character alone will counterbalance the disadvantage which will sometimes attach to the fact that you have enabled the adversaries to read your hand. If your partner knows that you play at random and without method, he will be in a state of constant uncertainty; and you almost preclude him from executing any of the finer strokes of play, the opportunities for which generally arise from being able to infer with confidence the position of particular cards. The extreme case of two skilled players against two unskilled ones amounts almost to this, that towards the close of a hand the former have the same advantage as though they had seen each other’s cards, while the latter have not.
It follows that when you are unfortunately tied to an untaught partner, especially if at the same time you are pitted against observant adversaries, you should expose your hand as little as possible, particularly in respect of minor details.
It will become apparent, on consideration, that the question of the advisability of affording information is more or less intimately connected with every card that is played. It is, therefore, of extreme importance to ascertain whether the practice is advantageous or the reverse. The arguments just adduced are doubtless in favour of the practice of affording information by the play; but it must be admitted that by far the strongest authority for it is that experienced players, by their settled opinions, reject the opposite course.
The instructed player frequently selects one card in preference to another with the sole object of affording information. When the principle is carried thus far, the play becomes purely conventional. For example: you naturally win a trick as cheaply as possible; if, fourth hand, you could win with a ten, you would not waste an ace. But suppose you hold knave and ten, which card should then be played? The knave and ten in one hand are of equal value, and therefore to win with the knave would be no unnecessary sacrifice of strength. Nevertheless, you extend to such cases the rule of winning as cheaply as possible, and you play the ten for the mere purpose of conveying information. This is a simple instance of pure convention. Again: the system of returning the higher of two losing cards (see p. 80) when they are both small cards, is purely conventional. To take another case: after two rounds of your four-card suit, you are left with two losing cards, say the six and the seven, and you, having the lead, are about to continue the suit; you should lead the six, not the seven, in accordance with the rule that you lead the lowest card of a suit, except with commanding strength. This being the convention, if you lead the seven, your partner will infer that you cannot hold the six, and will suppose that you led from a three-card suit, in consequence of exceptional circumstances; if he is a good player he will miscount all the hands, probably to your mutual discomfiture.
Whist conventions, it will be observed, are in accordance with, and are suggested by, principle. Indeed, all the established conventions of the game are so chosen as to harmonise with play that would naturally be adopted independently of convention. The aggregation of the recognised rules of play, including the established conventions, constitute what in practice is called the Conversation of the Game of Whist.
It must not be overlooked that unsound players often deceive unintentionally, and all players sometimes with intention. It is, therefore, necessary to be on your guard against drawing inferences too rigidly.
There are some ways of conveying information which have not been explained. For example: if you have the complete command of a suit, you can publish the fact by discarding the highest of it; the presumption being that you would never throw away a winning card with a losing one in your hand. If you discard a second-best card of a suit of which your partner does not know you to hold a long sequence, you ought to have no more of the suit, for with the best also you would discard that, and with a smaller one you would discard that. By winning with the highest, and returning the lowest of a sequence (more especially fourth hand), you show that you have the intermediate cards. Thus, with ace, king, queen, fourth hand, if you desire to continue the suit, and at the same time to show that you still remain with the winning card, you would win with the ace and return the queen. Again, as long as you keep the turn-up card in hand, your partner knows where it is; so, having turned up a nine and holding the ten, trump with the ten in preference. This rule, however, is liable to exceptions. With very small trumps, of equal value, trumping with the higher card may be mistaken for an exhibition of four or five trumps; also, if you are weak in trumps, and the adversaries have shown strength in them, it is not advisable to keep the turn-up card; for, if the adversaries know you have it in your hand, they will draw it, whereas, if you play it, they may be uncertain as to your holding another. If you open a suit of ace, king only, it must be a forced lead. You then adopt the rule of leading the highest of a numerically weak suit, and first lead the ace. This shows your partner (unless you have already been forced, when you lead the ace before king for other reasons), that you have no more of the suit. Also, by leading the lowest of a head sequence of winning trumps (subject, if an American Leader, to a selection of card in order to show number), you convey information. Thus, you lead a small trump, partner plays queen, won with king. You remain with ace, knave, ten. On obtaining the lead, you continue with the ten, and, when it wins, you have shown two by honours (unless ace is held up, which is unlikely). If you continue with ace, as in plain suits, your partner can tell nothing about the knave and ten. You may pursue the same method in plain suits when your partner has no more trumps, and with any head sequence when you want him to win the trick, or are sure he cannot, and also when the fourth hand has already renounced in the suit led.
A most valuable mode of conveying very precise information of strength is within the reach of players who think fit to adopt American Leads (see Appendix A). As the propriety of these leads is questioned by some players, it may be stated that they form a beautiful system which is in full harmony with the established principles of whist play.
With regard to the American system when leading a high card of your strong suit after a high card, no one disputes the propriety of leading ace, then queen, from ace, queen, knave, and one small card; and of leading ace, then knave, from ace, queen, knave, and more than one small card. In the case of the four-card suit, you select the higher card to tell your partner not to play the king, as you have not sufficient numerical power to defend the suit single-handed. In the case of a suit of more than four cards, you select the lower card that your partner may not retain the command of your suit, and may play the king, should he happen to have held king and two small ones originally. For a similar reason, it is obvious that with queen, knave, ten, and one small card, you should follow queen with knave; with queen, knave, ten, and more than one small card, you should follow queen with ten.
Now, here is a germ of a principle of play. Holding two high indifferent cards, and only four of your suit, your second lead is the higher card; holding more than four, your second lead is the lower card.
For the sake of uniformity, you should pursue the same plan in all cases where, after your first lead, you remain with two high indifferent cards. Thus, your original lead is a ten, from king, knave, ten, and one or more small cards. The queen is played to your ten. You have the lead again, and it is immaterial, so far as establishing the suit is concerned, whether you proceed with the king or with the knave. But, if your practice is uniform, and in accordance with the practice which obtains in the case of ace, queen, knave, and of queen, knave, ten, you can inform your partner whether you led from a suit of four cards or of more than four cards. If you continue with the king, the higher of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and one small card; if you continue with the knave, the lower of two indifferent cards, you led from king, knave, ten, and more than one small card.
With regard to the American system, when opening your strong suit with a low card, those who have already adopted the penultimate lead from suits of five cards, will have no difficulty in again discovering the germ of a principle of play. The fourth-best card of your suit is led from suits of four cards, and from suits of five cards.
You have only to apply the same rule to suits of more than five cards, and to lead your fourth-best card. You then pursue a uniform practice, and at the same time convey valuable information. (See Appendix A).
As an illustration, take this suit—queen, ten, nine, eight. You lead the eight. Now suppose your suit to be queen, ten, nine, eight, three. You still lead the eight. Now add one more card. Your suit is queen, ten, nine, eight, three, two. You should still lead the eight. No doubt, a careful player would lead the eight, as a card of protection, even if American leads had never been thought of. With lower cards, such as queen, nine, eight, seven, three, two, it is possible a careful player might lead the seven; and with still lower cards, where is he to stop? The knot is cut by the very simple and uniform rule of leading the fourth-best, without reference to the possibility of its being a card of protection.
With regard to the lead of a high card followed by a low card, when the American system is followed, the low card selected should be the original fourth-best. (See Appendix A).
The more the American system is examined, the more thorough and perfect it will be found. Care, however, must be taken, with leads late in a hand, not to confuse a fourth-best lead with a forced lead of the highest card of a weak suit. The American rule only applies, in its integrity to the original lead,—or after one or more tricks have been played, to the original lead of the player’s own choice, (See Appendix A). Also, it may be, that the leader, with very strong cards in all plain suits, starts by leading a strengthening trump. The uncertainty of the real character of the lead, in this case, is no doubt unfavourable; but, the advantage of frequently being able to give information of great numerical strength far outweighs this occasional danger.
Information as to the number of trumps you hold can be similarly communicated when you have more than four trumps, by trumping with the fourth-best and then leading the fourth-best of those remaining. This rule, however, is subject to rather a large exception. When your fourth-best trump is a medium card, such as an eight, trumping with the eight may imperil a trick later on. For instance: with such cards as king, knave, nine, eight, three, a careful player would rightly trump with the three and lead the eight. For the time, you do not inform your partner as to number, because the eight is too valuable a card to get rid of, and the information might be purchased too dearly. Also, when about to lead high trumps after a force, there is no occasion to run any risk by trumping with any but the lowest, as the high cards led will of themselves indicate how many trumps you now hold (not how many you held originally). If you take a force with any trump but the lowest, and do not lead a trump, when your lowest is afterwards played it only signifies that you had at least five trumps originally, and your play does not constitute a call for trumps. (See p. 125.)