MILTON C. WORK (continued 4)

8. The dummy should not leave his seat for the purpose of watching his partner's play, neither should he call attention to the score nor to any card or cards that he or the other players hold, nor to any bid previously made.

9. 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 should 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.

10. If a player concede in error one or more tricks, the concession should stand.

11. A player having been cut out of one table should not seek admission into another unless willing to cut for the privilege of entry.

12. No player should look at any of his cards until the deal is completed.

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.

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.

OFFENSE PENALTY LAW

Revoke by Declarer 150 points 84a

Revoke by Adversary 150 points or 3 tricks 84b

Revoke by Dummy None 63

Second revoke in same hand 100 points 84c

Lead out of turn by Declarer None 77

Lead out of turn by Adversary Exposed card or Called lead 76

Card exposed during deal New deal 37c

Card exposed after deal and before end of bidding Partner cannot bid nor lead suit of card and card may be called 65

Card exposed after end of bidding and before lead May be called and if exposed by Third Hand that suit not be led 66

Card exposed during play by Declarer None 72

Adversary May be called {67 {72

Two or more cards played at once by adversary All may be called 70

Not playing to trick New deal 81

Playing 2 cards to trick Liable for revoke 82

Playing with less than 13 cards Liable for revoke 38

Holding 14 cards New deal 37d

Misdeal New deal {36 {37

Dealing out of turn or with wrong cards May be corrected before last card is dealt 40

Declaration out of turn New deal 49

Double out of turn New deal 57

Pass out of turn None 49

Insufficient declaration Made sufficient and partner debarred from bidding 50

Impossible declaration Made 7 tricks and partner debarred from bidding; or new deal; or previous declaration may be made final 50

Dummy's calling attention to any offense Penalty for offense eliminated 61

Dummy's suggesting a play It may be required or prohibited 62

Declarer's naming or touching card in Dummy May have to play it 64

Adversary's calling attention to trick Partner may be required to play highest or lowest card or win or lose trick 92

Giving information about bidding after final bid Called lead 51

Fourth Hand playing before Second Second Hand may be required to play highest or lowest card or win or lose trick 80

Cutting more than one card Must take highest 16

APPENDIX

QUERIES AND ANSWERS

The introduction of the count now in use has produced so radical a change in the game of Auction that of necessity innumerable differences of opinion have arisen among individual players.

Many questions have been submitted to arbitrators for decision. In some cases the author of Auction of To-day has been complimented by being called upon for his opinion, and a few queries that seem to be upon points of general interest, with the answers given, follow.

Query

What is the correct original bid of the Dealer in the following cases?

1. Seven Diamonds, headed by Knave, Ten; Ace of Spades; Ace of Hearts; Ace and three small Clubs.

2. The same hand, except that the Clubs are Ace, King, and two small.

3. The same two hands, with the Diamonds headed by Queen, Knave, Ten.

Answer

These hands are evidently conceived for the purpose of proving vulnerable the rule that a suit should not be called without the Ace or King. They doubtless never did and probably never will occur in actual play, but most aptly illustrate a point of declaration, and are, therefore, worthy of consideration.

It must be remembered that in the extraordinary case any convention of declaration may be varied to suit the hand. Undoubtedly, the last rule to permit exception is that above mentioned. For the purpose of emphasis it may properly be said to be without exception, and yet, if any such holding actually happen, it may become necessary for the Declarer to take a little leeway. It cannot affect the confidence of the partner if a player, only under such extraordinary circumstances, departs from the conventional, and the remarkable character of the hand guarantees that harm will not result in the particular instance.

All of the above hands contain three Aces, yet a No-trump should not be bid, as it would probably be left in, and with two singleton Aces they are dangerous No-trumpers, but strong Diamonds.

The hands are much too strong to call one Spade, as that also might not be overbid. Two Spades followed by Diamonds would be quite satisfactory, would avoid breaking the rule, but would not include the effort to eliminate adverse bidding which, with a hand of this character, might be desirable.

Two Diamonds is not permissible, as that is the conventional call for a solid Diamond suit.

There is no reason, however, that three or more Diamonds or Clubs should not indicate a long weak Trump suit with such additional strength that one Spade is an unsafe call. Such a bid would suggest that a game is probable in the suit named. It is not a recognized bid and would rarely be used, but an intelligent partner would at once grasp its meaning.

The answer to the above, therefore, is

1. Three Diamonds.

2. Three, or even Four, Diamonds. (The bid of one Club might be left in.)

3. Three or 4 Diamonds in first; 4 in second.

Query

Would it not improve the game of Auction and increase the amount of skill required in the declaration if the value of Royal Spades be altered from 9 to 5?

Answer

The basic theory of the present count is to equalize, as nearly as possible, the value of the five declarations, in order to produce the maximum amount of competition in bidding. This has proved most popular with the mass of players, and has been universally adopted not only in this country, but also in England, France, and Russia. To decrease the value of the Royal Spade from 9 to 5, would be a distinct step backward. In that case it would take 4, instead of 3, Royal Spades to overbid two No-trumps; and 6, instead of 4, to overbid three No-trumps. It is not likely that any change, which diminishes the ability of the holder of Spades (or of any suit) to compete with a No-trump, will ever appeal to Auction devotees. The greater the possibility for competitive bidding, the greater the opportunity for displaying skill in that branch of the game.

Query

Should the Dealer bid one Club, holding Ace and King of Clubs, four small Spades, four small Hearts, Ace, Queen, and one small Diamond?

Answer

No. One Club deceives the partner. It indicates length in Clubs, and may induce him to advance that suit too far. In the event of an adverse No-trump, it will probably result in the lead of the partner's highest Club, which is apt to prove extremely disastrous. One No-trump is far safer than one Club, and might be defended on the ground that with four cards in each of the two weak suits the danger of a long adverse run is reduced.

One Spade, however, places the Dealer in a splendid position to advance any call his partner may make, and is doubtless the sound bid.

Query

Is it not an objection to the count now in use that the Spade suit is given two values, and would it not be wise to make Spades 9, and allow the Dealer to pass the original declaration?

Answer

The advisability of this plan was thoroughly considered before the present count was suggested. It would make a pass by the Dealer equal to the present declaration of one Spade, and in the event of the four players all passing, presumably would necessitate a new deal. It would eliminate two, three, and four Spade bids by the Dealer and Second Hand, and the double of one Spade by the latter.

It would relieve the Third Hand from determining whether to take his partner out of one Spade, and take from the Fourth Hand the decision of whether to play for a penalty of 100 or try for game. It is evident, therefore, that it would take a great deal out of the bidding of every one of the four players, and it is hard to believe that any scheme tending to decrease the variety of, and amount of skill required for, the declaration, is to the advantage of the game.

The objection to having two Spade values is purely theoretical, as players are not in the least embarrassed thereby, nor is the number of declarations at present a part of the game cumbersome or confusing. The argument, that if there be two Spade values there might equally well be two values for each of the other suits, almost answers itself. Having more than one Royal declaration would of necessity result in complications, and, of course, only one defensive call is needed. With the advantages of the Spade bid so numerous and evident, and with no real disadvantage apparent, there does not seem to be any sound reason for abandoning it.

Query

Dealer bids one Royal. Second Hand holds Ace, King, Queen, Knave, and Ten of Clubs; Ace, King, and two small Diamonds; Ace and two small Hearts; one small Spade. What should he bid?

Answer

Three Clubs. The holding thoroughly justifies a No-trump, as the hand contains eight sure tricks. If, however, the partner cannot stop the Spades, the adversaries will save the game at once, while eleven Club tricks is not an impossibility. Furthermore, the partner may have the Spades stopped if led up to him, but not if led through him.

The Declaration of three Clubs (one more than necessary) tells the partner the situation, and accomplishes two purposes:—if the partner have not the Spades stopped, the game is still possible; if the partner have the Spades stopped, if led up to him, it instructs him to call two No-trumps, whereas a No-trump bid by the Second Hand, with the same cards, might fail to produce game, because the position of the opening lead would then be reversed.

Query

Dealer bids one No-trump; Second Hand, two Hearts. Third Hand holds

Spades Knave, Ten, and three small

Hearts One small

Diamonds Two small

Clubs Ace, Queen, Knave, and two small

What should be bid?

Answer

Two Royals. This hand, especially with an adverse Heart call, is much more apt to go game at Royals than at No-trump. Two Royals asks to be let alone; three Clubs practically commands the partner to bid two No-trumps if he have the Hearts stopped.

This is but an expansion of the principle that the original call of one Club or one Diamond suggests a No-trump, while one Heart or one Royal indicates a desire to try for game in the suit named.

Query

Is it fair for partners to agree that the bid of one Spade shall mean weakness; one Club, general strength; and two Clubs, strength in Clubs?

Answer

It is perfectly fair for players to use the above-described, or any other convention, provided their adversaries understand its meaning. Conventions are an essential part of Auction. The lead of a King to show the Ace is a convention—so is every informatory play or declaration. When plays or bids are generally understood, it is unnecessary for players to explain their significance, but the adversaries should have all the information upon the subject possessed by the partner, and nothing approaching a private understanding should exist.

Query

The Dealer bids one No-trump, holding

Spades Ace, Queen, Ten, and three small

Hearts Ace, Queen

Diamonds Ace, and one small

Clubs Ace, and two small

Second and Third Hands pass; Fourth Hand, two Diamonds.

What should the Dealer declare on the second round?

Answer

Two Royals. The hand is far too strong to pass, while to bid two No-trumps is foolish, as, unless the partner hold the King of Spades, it is almost certain that the contract cannot be fulfilled.

Two Royals is safe and presents a good chance of game. A game in Royals is far more valuable than 100 for Aces, which may be reduced, if not wiped out, by penalties for under-tricks.

Query

Score, Love. Dealer bids one Spade; Second Hand, one Diamond; Third Hand, one Royal; Fourth Hand, two Clubs.

Second round, Dealer bids two Royals; Second Hand, three Clubs; Third Hand, three Royals; Fourth Hand, four Diamonds.

Dealer holds

Spades Knave, 10, 7

Hearts King, Knave, 8

Diamonds 7, 4, 3

Clubs King, 7, 6, 3

Should he double the four Diamond declaration?

Answer

A bid of four Diamonds should never be doubled at a love score unless the Doubler be reasonably sure of defeating the declaration. In this case he may expect to win one Club, and possibly one Heart, although that is not sure. Either the Declarer or the Dummy may be without Spades. The double does not seem reasonably safe and may keep the partner from a successful bid of four Royals. The Dealer, therefore, should pass.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Also known as "the Bid" and "the Call."

² With a similar suit in either Spades or Hearts, Royals or Hearts should be the bid.

³ While, as a general rule, to justify an original suit declaration, "one other honor" should accompany either Ace or King, it is not necessary to blindly follow such a requirement to an absurd extreme.

If the suit be headed by the Ace, either unusual length (six or more) or considerable strength in another suit (Ace and King, or Ace, Queen, Knave) would justify a call without "one other honor."

If, however, the suit be headed by the King, the presence of another honor is essential unless the length or additional strength be extraordinary.

⁴ See footnote, page 31.

⁵ See page 89, as to how the partner should treat this declaration; also table on pages 68 and 69.

⁶ See page 90, as to how the partner should treat this declaration.

⁷ See Bid of Two Spades by Dealer, page 47.

⁸ See page 123 as to how the partner should treat this declaration.

⁹ See page 47.

¹⁰ See page 49.

¹¹ See page 72.

¹² See page 86.

¹³ See page 86.

¹⁴ See pages 67-72 inc.

¹⁵ See pages 88, 89, 90.

¹⁶ See pages 65, 66.

¹⁷ See pages 108, 109.

¹⁸ See page 111.

¹⁹ See pages 96-108 inc.

²⁰ See pages 65, 66.

²¹ See pages 139-142 inc.

²² These suits unless declared by partner should not be opened, as they are disadvantageous leads against a Trump declaration.

²³ This is the conventional lead from this combination, but many good players prefer the Queen, especially when the indications are that the hand is not evenly divided. When long suits have been announced, the chances are that the suit led will be ruffed on the third round, if not earlier. If the King be in the Second Hand and the Ace in the Third, a trick can be gained by leading the Queen whenever the suit does not last for three rounds. Therefore, unless the hand indicate that the suits are evenly divided, the Queen seems to be the better lead.

²⁴ Law 84 prohibits the revoking side from scoring slam or little slam.

²⁵ Law 84 prohibits the revoking side from scoring slam or little slam.

²⁶ See Law 14 as to value of cards in cutting.

²⁷ See Law 73.