* * * * *
You are still playing at Écarté, and you have three points, but your adversary is doubtless in ignorance of the fact, since he inquires of you, where you are? "I count three," you reply. This announcement seems to make him decide not to stand on his own cards, so he proposes. From this, you would suppose he had a good hand. You would be wrong in this case to refuse, so you accept and give him five cards, as all this little bye-play was intended to intimidate you. He had nothing at all.
* * * * *
Some players endeavour to depict on their countenances, the contrary of what they really feel. If they have a good hand, they eagerly ask for cards, and when they have a bad one, they pretend to hesitate. Others, with good cards, pretend to be in a bad temper, and frown; whilst, with bad cards, they appear gay and anxious to begin to play.
* * * * *
It sometimes happens that a player, at the end of a game, is puzzled which of the two last cards he is to throw down. One of them may save the vole, but he is not sure which. Instead of playing according to the proverb, which says qui garde à carreau n'est pas capot, he holds down his hand, so that his adversary may see both cards, and fixes his eyes upon those of his vis-à-vis, which very naturally, are bent on the card which is against himself. The other profits by this look, and saves himself from being capoted.
This is an infallible criterion, but is it a right thing to do?
The following anecdote is related on this subject, and will not be out of place here:
At a game of Piquet, in which many were greatly interested, one of the players was on the point of being capoted. He had but two cards to play, the king of hearts, and the king of spades. One of these would save him, if he only played the right one; but which? He laid them both down on the table, and, after some hesitation, he decided on playing the king of spades, when he felt some one press his foot. Accepting this indication as a warning, he changed his intention, played the king of hearts, and lost the game. It was the king of spades he ought to have played. Vexed at the error he had committed, he asked who it was that pressed his foot, and found out it was his adversary. The latter apologised, pretending it was by accident. In this instance, again, the reader must judge for himself of the honesty of both the players.
* * * * *