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?


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 1 Case 11 facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail