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?
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.
Next: Case 11
Previous: Case 9