OFFENSE PENALTY LAW

Revoke by Declarer 150 points 84 _a_ Revoke by Adversary 150 points or 3 tricks 84 _b_ Revoke by Dummy None 63 Second revoke in same hand 100 points 84 _c_

Lead out of turn by Declarer None 77

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

Card exposed during deal New deal 37 _c_

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

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

Card exposed { Declarer None 72 during { play by { Adversary May be called { 67 { 72

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

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 37 _d_

Misdeal New deal { 36 { 37

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

Declaration out of turn New deal 49 Double out of turn New deal 57 Pa.s.s out of turn None 49

Insufficient declaration Made sufficient and partner 50 debarred from bidding

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

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

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

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

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

Giving information about Called lead 51 bidding after final bid

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

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 ill.u.s.trate 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 compet.i.tion in bidding. This has proved most popular with the ma.s.s 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 compet.i.tive bidding, the greater the opportunity for displaying skill in that branch of the game.