Case III
Y throws down his hand and claims “the game.” B (Y’s adversary) thinking that Y is referring only to the tricks, says, “You are not game.” Y then marks four. After the trump card of the following deal is turned up, A remarks, “if Y had scored his honours, he would have been game.” Y then claims the game, on the ground that he made the claim in time, and only withdrew it in consequence of B’s contradiction. Is Y entitled to score the game?
Decision—No. Y’s claim of “the game” is irregular. He is bound to state in what way he wins it (vide Law 6). There is no evidence that Y was referring to his honours when he claimed the game, but rather the contrary, as he afterwards withdrew his claim and said nothing about honours.
Note. This is an example of two players being in fault. It seems hard on Y that he should suffer through B’s mistake; but it must be borne in mind that the confusion was introduced by Y’s own irregularity, and that the omission to score honours was due to his subsequent forgetfulness.
Compare with Case II.