The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-01-16
PLAYERS SET RIGHT
AT ROYAL AUCTION
Interesting Cases Passed On
by The Whist Clubs
Committee.
VALUE OF ELEVEN RULE

b. MoC. says the declarer leads q
heart from dummy. Second hand plays
the nine Of spades. and his partner at
once ASKS him. mo hearts. partner
TO which he answers. YES. I have.'
The deciarer at once says, leave the
nine" but adds. play our highest
heart" The ad%versaries object. on the
ground that the deciarer has elected his
penalty and cannot change It.
The decision Of the committee IL as
follows: II and others following It being
all signed by the chairman. Milton c.
Work. and forwarded to THE Sun for
publication:
IN tho opinion OF the committee the
entire question hinges upon whether the
player fully made his election. Had he
"a for example. Leave II MIN OF
spades upon the table, that would have
been a determination that he elected to
call tina card, and he could not there
after have demanded the playing OF the
highest heart.
I'm this ease. however. the deolarer
did not apparently reach a final deter
mination. II would look as IL he had
started ono decision and then changed 1,
to another. Leave tho nine does no;
mean much moro than the mere word
leave which could not be construed as
q decision. II might Re hat the intent
.-.. - Aat.h Ah. a.aa,Aa aa,.A fhA
| nine on the table or not. as YOU choose.
| but play your highest heart il would,
therefore. seem that the declarer was
| within his rights in demanding the
playing Of the highest heart"
Here is another close one: The de-
| clarer leads q club. the player on his left
trumps 81. dummy follows suit. but the
fourth player r~enounces. discarding a
trumped the trick exposes the king OF
spades. and at the same time his partner
says, whoa indicating that he has a
club. The last trick still lies face up
ward on the table. and the player still
holds the spade king In his hand. Does
the exposure Of the spade king establish
the revoke? The decision says:
tho committee decides that "A the
trick Is not urned down tho player in
error 10 In time to correct his revoke
because the king Of spades " not &C
tually led or played TO n next trick
until It u quilted. and adds that law 81
although referring particularly to thu
deciarsr. should apply equally 10 the sd'
versaries in the matter Of quitting card.
The king Of spades Is an exposed card
Of course and subject to call after the
revoke 10 corrected n the trick turned
down"
W. l. submits this case. which brirgr
up an interesting point. requiring q
rather close decision: The declaration
Is four clubs. TO 20 game the declares
must use ono OF duinmy's trumps or
the spade suit after II has been found
that A., on the declarer's left. Is out Of
trumps.
Declarer leads a spade. dummy
trumps. but b o~vertrumps, leading a dia'
mond. Declarer PLAYS to tho lead, wher
p exclaims. what did l play 10 tina,
last trick?' Dummy. who has been look
Ing at Rs hand. says. why, you re-
voked OF course A and d maintain
that dummy's calling attention TO TN
revoke valves the penalty. but the dc.
clarer insists on Rs correcting the re
woke. DO that dummy shall win the trick
which gives the declarer the game.
The question is: Did dummy call At.
tertion to the revoke or did Il do 90 by
his exclamation? Further. can tho de.
clarer insist on the revoke's being cor-
rected after he has played TO the mex
trick? The decision says;
The committee has considered this
case carefully and feels that It Gomez
within the strict ruling OF the law pro
viding that when a dummy has looked
at the cards OF an adversary and calls
attention to a revoke the penalty can
not be enforced. II Is true that the case
Is made unusually close by the fact tina
the offending player himself raised the
question. but all that he says Is. What
did ! play TO that last trick
1T 10 possible although not probable.
that the declarer did not notice the ro-
woke. but be this As It may the dummy's
act under the laws precludes a penalty
being claimed for IT. II Is quite clear
under the circumstances that tho de-
clarsr cannot insist upon tho revoke be.
Ing corrected"
This decision should be a Lesson "a
those dummies who are continually over
looking an adversary's cards. II will be
observed that had dummy not looked at
BIS hand he could have legitirhately
called attention to the revoke.
Here Is a case not likely to happen
often. but which suggests the possibility
OF an INSCRIPTIONS player making u
pack imperfect when things we're going
| against him:
h declarer II on the way 20 makins
what will he a small slam when there
are only three tricks left to play. A,
this point one OF tho a~dversaries claims
II Is a misdeal inc shows four cards
two OF which are duplicates (the foul
| Of clubs). and one Of which IL from
tho other pack. which lies on his left
The three other players had tho cprrec,
number Of cards. Ths footnote to law
20 says that II a deal Is concluded with.
out any claim OF irregularity that fact
shall he deemed AZ conclusive that such
card was part Of the pack during the
deal, In other words tho deal Is void,
Is this correct?
The committee does not agree with
this application, but says:
"In tho asa Of three players having
the correct number Of cards and the
fourth, having ono extra card. which
upon examination In proved to DO !,
card from the other pack, the foot note