Part 23 (1/2)

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 sportsmans.h.i.+p?

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 sportsmans.h.i.+p 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 sportsmans.h.i.+p, 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?”