Auction of To-day Part 23

CASE 9

Dummy leaves the table to get a gla.s.s of water. As he returns to his seat, he sees his partner's hand and notices that he is revoking.

Has he, under these circ.u.mstances, the right to ask him whether he has any more of the suit?

DECISION

Law 60 gives the Dummy the right to ask this question, and does not specify that he must be in his seat to avail himself of the privilege.

Section 9 of Etiquette provides that Dummy shall not leave his seat for the purpose of watching his partner's play; but even should he do so, his breach of etiquette would not deprive him of the rights given him by law.

An adversary may unquestionably object to the Dummy watching the play of the Declarer.

That, however, is not the case under consideration. The penalty for the revoke is the most severe in Auction, many think it unreasonably so, and a player is unquestionably ent.i.tled to every protection the law affords him.

The decision, therefore, is that, under the conditions named, the question may be asked.

CASE 10

With three tricks to play, the Declarer throws his cards face upward on the table, claiming the remaining tricks. His opponents admit his claim, and the score is entered. The Dummy then calls the attention of the table to the fact that, had a certain lead been made, the Declarer could not have taken all the tricks.

Query: Under the circ.u.mstances, is the Declarer ent.i.tled to all the tricks; first, viewing the question solely from a strict interpretation of the laws; and second, from the standpoint of good sportsmanship?

DECISION

Section 10 of Etiquette provides, "If a player concede in error one or more tricks, the concession should stand." There is no law affecting this situation, and, therefore, the section of Etiquette above quoted clearly covers the first portion of the query.

As to whether good sportsmanship would require the Declarer, under such circ.u.mstances, to voluntarily surrender any of the tricks to which he is ent.i.tled by law, does not seem to produce a more serious question.

It is true that the adversaries, by overlooking a possible play, made a concession that was not required, and that the Dummy noticed the error of the adversaries. Why, however, should the Dummy be obliged to correct this error any more than any other mistake of his opponents?

It is perfectly clear that, had a similar error been made by the Declarer, the Dummy could not have saved himself from suffering by reason of it, and, whether the question be either a strict interpretation of law or of sportsmanship, it is a poor rule that does not work both ways.

Both parts of the query are, therefore, answered in the affirmative.

CASE 11

The Declarer leads three rounds of Trumps, on the third an adversary refuses.

Later in the play the Declarer leads a winning card which is trumped by the adversary who has refused Trumps.

The player who trumped the trick gathered it.

The Declarer said, "How did you win it?"

The player answered, "I trumped it."

The Dummy then said, "Who trumped it?"

After this remark by the Dummy, the Declarer claims a revoke, the claim is disputed upon the ground that the Dummy called the revoke to the attention of the Declarer. The Declarer states that he would have made the claim, regardless of Dummy's remark.

Query: Should the revoke be allowed?

DECISION

Law 60 prescribes explicitly the privileges of the Dummy after he has placed his hand on the table.

There are exactly six things which he may do and no more.

Law 61 provides, "Should the declarer's partner call attention to any other incident of the play in consequence of which any penalty might have been exacted, the declarer is precluded from exacting such penalty."

Inasmuch as asking "Who won the trick?" is not one of the six privileges allowed the Dummy, such action is irregular, and must, of necessity, call attention to the revoke. Had the Dummy actually claimed the revoke, it would preclude the exaction of a penalty, even had the Declarer been about to claim it. It is, therefore, immaterial whether the Declarer would have noticed the revoke had the Dummy not made the irregular remark.

The question is decided in the negative.

CASE 12

The adversaries of the Declarer take ten tricks, but revoke. Under these conditions, can either side score "except for honors or chicane?"

DECISION

Law 84 provides that "a revoking side cannot score, except for honors or chicane."

It also provides: "If either of the adversaries revoke, the declarer may either add 150 points to his score in the honor column or may take three tricks from his opponents and add them to his own. Such tricks may a.s.sist the declarer to make good his declaration."

It is evident that the Declarer is given the option of either scoring 150 points or taking three tricks, should he prefer to make good his declaration rather than receive the bonus.

In the case cited, three tricks could not fulfill the contract, but should a thoughtless or generous Declarer elect to take a penalty which would not benefit him, in preference to 150, he would be acting within his rights.

The rule clearly decides this case. The adversaries "cannot score except for honors or chicane," and the Declarer can "add 150 to his score in the honor column" if he elect so to do.

Acknowledgment is made of the courtesy of The Whist Club of New York in permitting the publication of its code of laws and of the decisions of its Card Committee.

SUMMARIZED PENALTIES

For the benefit of those who wish to hastily ascertain the penalty for an offense or to refer to the law upon the subject, the following table of summarized penalties has been prepared. It does not include every possible penalty, but merely those of most frequent occurrence.