Decisions by the Card Committee of the Whist Club of New York
Since the adoption of the foregoing code, the Card Committee of the Whist Club of New York has rendered the following decisions, interpreting certain laws that have caused discussion. The cases in question have arisen in various localities,—Number 6, for example, coming from St. Louis, Number 7 from Northern New York, and Number 8 from Mexico.
Case 1
A bids out of turn. Y and Z consult as to whether they shall allow the declaration to stand or demand a new deal. B claims that, by reason of the consultation, the right to enforce a penalty is lost.
Decision
Rule 49 does not prohibit consultation. It provides that “either adversary may demand a new deal or allow the declaration to stand.” This obviously only means that the decision first made by either shall be final. The old law prohibiting consultation has been stricken from the code, and the action seems wise, as such a question as, “Will you enforce the penalty, or shall I?” is really a consultation, and consequently an evasion of the law.
There does not seem to be any sound reason for preventing partners entitled to a penalty or choice of penalties from consulting, and as the laws at present stand, there is unquestionably nothing prohibiting it.
B’s claim, therefore, is not allowed.
Case 2
A bids two Hearts, Y bids two Diamonds,—B demands that the Y declaration be made sufficient. Y says, “I correct my declaration to three Diamonds.” B passes, Z bids three No-trumps. A claims that Z has no right to bid.
Decision
Law 50 provides that “in case of an insufficient declaration... the partner is debarred from making any further declaration.” This exactly covers the case in question. True it is that Law 52 provides that, prior to the next player passing, declaring, or doubling, a declaration inadvertently made may be corrected. The obvious intent of this law is that it shall apply when a player says, “Two Diamonds—I mean, three Diamonds”; or, “Two Spades—I mean two Royals”; and that such correction shall be allowed without penalty if the declaration has really been inadvertently made and neither adversary has taken any action whatever. We interpret 52 by reading into it the additional words, “or either adversary calls attention to the insufficient declaration.” The construction put upon 52 by Y would result in nullifying a most important part of 50.
The claim of A is sustained.
Case 3
At the conclusion of the play the cards are turned face downward preparatory to the next deal. It is then discovered that the pack contains two Queens of Clubs and no Knave of Clubs. The score has been claimed and admitted, but not recorded.
Is the deal which has just been completed, void?
Decision
Rule 39 provides that “If, during the play, a pack be proven incorrect, such proof renders the current deal void, but does not affect any prior score.”
“Current” may be defined as “in actual progress,” “belonging to the time immediately passing.”
It seems clear, therefore, that as the discovery of the imperfection did not occur during “the current deal,” the result of it becomes “a prior score,” which under the terms of the rule is not affected.
Case 4
A player belonging to one table expresses his desire to enter another, and cuts in. At the end of the rubber he claims that he is not obliged to cut with the others.
Decision
Rule 24 provides that “When one or more players belonging to an existing table aid in making up a new one, he or they shall be the last to cut out.” This rule applies only when a player leaves an existing table to help make up another, when, without him, there would not be four players for the new table.
When a player leaves a table and cuts into another, his presence not being required to complete the table he enters, he has the same standing as the others at that table.
Case 5
A player belonging to one table expresses his desire to join another, cuts for the privilege of entering in accordance with Rule 23, and fails to cut in. At the end of the rubber, must he cut again?
Decision
By his first cut he lost his rights at his former table and became a member of the new table; at the end of the rubber he has the right to enter without cutting.
Case 6
The bidding in an Auction deal was as follows:—
| 1st Round | 2d Round | 3d Round | |
| North | 3 Royals | Redouble | Double |
| East | No | No | No |
| South | 4 Hearts | No | Double |
| West | Double | 6 Clubs | Claims new deal |
The deal was played and resulted in the Declarer taking six tricks, a loss of 600. The question is whether West’s claim should be sustained or this score counted, it being a part of the case stated that the declaration which was the subject of complaint was made inadvertently.
Decision
Law 54 provides that “A player cannot redouble his partner’s double,” but does not penalize such action. The prohibition is intended to prevent an increase in the value of the tricks and a penalty is not attached, as the additional double is generally a careless act, not likely to materially benefit the offending player.
It goes without saying that any such double is most irregular, and any suggestion of strength thereby conveyed will not be used by an honorable partner. The same comment applies to the remark, sometimes made, “Partner, I would have doubled if you had not.”
A player repeatedly guilty of such conduct, or of intentionally violating any other law, should be reprimanded, and, if the offense be continued, ostracized.
In the case under consideration, this question does not arise, as it is conceded that the act was simply an inadvertence. Even, however, had its bona fides been questioned, the decision would of necessity be that the score be counted, as the laws do not provide a penalty for the offense.
Case 7
The bidding in an Auction deal was as follows:—
| 1st Round | 2d Round | 3d Round | 4th Round | |
| North | 1 Club | 1 Heart | 2 Hearts | No |
| East | 1 Diamond | No | Double | No |
| South | No | No | 3 Clubs | |
| West | No | 2 Diamonds | No |
South claimed that his partner, having abandoned the Club declaration, he (South) became the real Club bidder, and, having made the final declaration, was entitled to play the combined hands.
Decision
Rule 46 provides that when the winning suit was first bid by the partner, no matter what bids have intervened, he shall play the hand.
This rule decides the case.
Case 8
At about the seventh or eighth trick, the left-hand adversary of the Declarer remarks, “If you have all of the tricks, lay down your hand.” The Declarer does not answer, but continues the play in the usual manner.
One trick later the same adversary says, “Lay down your hand,” whereupon almost simultaneously the Declarer and the adversary who has done the talking place their hands face upward on the table.
The Declarer then states that he can take all the tricks. The play is not completed, but examination shows one trick may be taken by the adversaries of the Declarer if he do not finesse in a certain way.
Under these irregular circumstances, should the Declarer lose the trick?
Decision
Law 72 provides, “If either or both of the declarer’s adversaries throw his or their cards on the table face upward, such cards are exposed and liable to be called; but if either adversary retain his hand, he cannot be forced to abandon it. Cards exposed by the declarer are not liable to be called. If the declarer say, ‘I have the rest,’ or any other words indicating that the remaining tricks or any number thereof are his, he may be required to place his cards face upward on the table. His adversaries are not liable to have any of their cards called should they thereupon expose them.”
Section 9 of Etiquette provides: “If a player say, ‘I have the rest,’ or any words indicating the remaining tricks are his and one or both of the other players expose his or their cards or request him to play out the hand, he should not allow any information, so obtained, to influence his play, nor take any finesse not announced by him at the time of making such claim, unless it had been previously proven to be a winner.”
The case under consideration is covered by the first portion of Law 72. The latter portion of that law does not apply, as the opponent did not place his cards on the table after a claim by the Declarer.
The law seems clear, the cards of the adversary are exposed and subject to call—the cards of the Declarer cannot be called.
The etiquette of the game, however, must not be disregarded.
The plain intent of Section 9 and the justice of the case is that, if the Declarer place his hand on the table claiming the remaining tricks, he should not receive a doubtful trick unless, when he made his claim, he contemplated any finesse necessary to obtain it.
If he did not intend to finesse that way, or did not then realize that a finesse would be necessary, he should, under these circumstances, voluntarily surrender the trick.
The reason for this is that, should a Declarer claim all the tricks, the opponent who requires the hand to be played out would naturally hold the strength; the locus of the request, therefore, suggests the way to win the finesse.
It is most advantageous for the interest of Auction that, when no real play remains, time should not be wasted, but neither side should in any way benefit by an effort to avoid useless delay.
In the case under consideration, however, the adversary suggests that the hands be placed on the table, and the Declarer may naturally expect that the only card which might take a trick will drop.
There is no reason to assume that the Declarer will not finesse correctly, and it is not just that the act of his opponent should deprive him of the opportunity of so doing.
The decision, therefore, is that the Declarer is entitled to the disputed trick.
Case 9
Dummy leaves the table to get a glass of water. As he returns to his seat, he sees his partner’s hand and notices that he is revoking.
Has he, under these circumstances, 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 entitled 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 circumstances, is the Declarer entitled 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 circumstances, to voluntarily surrender any of the tricks to which he is entitled 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 assist 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.