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 2d 3d Round Round 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 2d 3d 4th Round Round Round 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 ent.i.tled 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 a.s.sume 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 ent.i.tled to the disputed trick.