Cases and decisions
Case I
- A calls four cards for point.
- B replies, " Equal".
- A says, " Forty-one".
- B then finds he cannot have a point of forty-one, but that he has a point of five cards.
- A claims to score the point.
Decision
A cannot score the point. He has not made another call or a further call (Law 51); he has only completed an imperfect call.
B's reply bars him from counting a superior number of cards for point (Law 46). His point, though not good to score, is good to save a pique or a repique.
Case II
A calls three kings, which B allows to be good. It is presently discovered that A has not three kings. B then claims to reckon four tens. Is he entitled to do so ?
Decision
B's admission of three kings being good is subject to A's holding them. B, it is true, might at once have disallowed the call; but, when he supposes A to have three kings, he may desire to sink his tens, and this he may no longer wish to do if he knows A to have a king out.
Case III
A proposes a fresh deal.
B makes no reply until after A has discarded, when he says he will give a fresh deal.
A, judging from B's hesitation that there is not a powerful hand against him, states that he does not now wish for a fresh deal. B insists that as he has never refused the offer, it is still open,
Decision :
The law does not contemplate the offer of a fresh deal. A fresh deal is a matter of agreement between the players. In this case, though B has not, in words, refused a fresh deal, he has allowed A to carry the game a step further by discarding. This is tantamount to a refusal.
Case IV
A calls a point headed by ace, and two tierce majors in other suits, and leads a card, but says nothing about aces. Can B reckon three knaves ?
Decision
B cannot reckon three knaves. A has declared three aces by implication, and can reckon anything he has omitted before B plays to the first trick (Law 56). B's course is to play a card, saying nothing about knaves, when A loses the score for the aces.
If, however, A is under a rubicon, and B calls knaves, if A objects he must reckon his aces.
Case V
Elder hand directs the younger to discard for carte blanche. The younger having discarded three cards, the elder then shows his hand, and says, "I leave a card". Can the younger hand alter his discard after having seen his adversary's cards ?
Decision : Yes. The elder hand should state that he leaves a card before showing his carte blanche.
Case VI
Elder hand discards, and takes up a card of the stock (Law 24).
Younger hand then finds he has a carte blanche, and proposes to show it (Law 19).
Can the elder hand alter his discard, as he has not been informed of the carte blanche? (Law 20.)
If not, can the younger hand reckon the carte blanche, as he has not informed the elder hand intime for him to discard for a carte blanche ?
Decision : The elder hand cannot alter his discard. The younger hand can reckon the carte blanche.
Note : This is a matter of etiquette rather than of law. The younger hand is bound to inform the elder as soon as he is aware he has a carte blanche (Law 20). If he is not aware that he has a carte blanche before the elder has taken up a card of the stock, there is no help for it.
The younger hand cannot be required to do an impossibility. Of course, bona fides is assumed on the part of the younger hand, i.e. that he has not unnecessarily delayed his declaration.
The old law was that the younger hand need not inform the elder of a carte blanche. The distinction between the duties of the elder and younger hands in this respect, was no doubt drawn in order to preclude the occurrence of such a case as the present.
Case VII
A calls three queens. B says. "Which queen do you not reckon ?" A replies, " Queen of diamonds," and then reckons queens. B says,"Three queens are not good; I have three kings". Is B entitled to score his kings?
Decision No. Asking which queen is out is equivalent to admitting three queens to be good. B, by ascertaining which queen is out, obtains information to which he is only entitled in the case of A's scoring the queens.
Case VIII
A calls three kings. B says, "Good. Which king do you not reckon ?" A replies, "King of diamonds". On playing the cards it is discovered that A has the king of diamonds in hand, and that he has put out the king of hearts.
B claims that A can score nothing that hand. A contends that it is only a misnomer, for which he cannot be punished.
Decision B's claim is correct. It is true that A actually held three kings; but, as the reply of the elder hand is only a substitute for showing the kings, he has defined his claim to be for three kings, including one which he has not got. He is therefore liable to the penalty for scoring what he does not hold.
Case IX
A calls four knaves (holding only three). B replies, "Good". A then says, "I beg your pardon, I have only three knaves". B replies "Not good". B might have held four aces, but,having discarded an ace, has only three.
A thus discovers before he leads a card that B has an ace out, and so obtains information to which he is not entitled. Has B any remedy?
Decision B has no remedy. It is one of those accidents that will occasionally happen which card laws cannot reach.
Case X
A (elder hand) has a quint major, and such other cards that he will probably put B to a card.A places the quint major on the table and says " Play five cards".
B accidentally plays six cards.
At the end of the hand, when A plays his last card, it is found that B has no card to play to it.
B claims to play the hand over again (Law 59,par. II.)
A urges that B was distinctly informed how many cards he had to play; that he cannot benefit by his own mistake; and that, now he has seen all the cards, he knows which card to keep in order to save the capot.
Decision The hand must be played over again, B retaking one of the cards he played to the quint major.
A might have protected himself by counting the cards originally played by B. If he is too careless to do so, he must take the consequences.
Case XI
A (elder hand), having a quint major in clubs and the seven, places the quint major on the table together with the seven of spades, and says "Play six cards".
B plays five cards, and then takes the seven of spades with the eight. A then says, " I made a mistake; I intended to have played the seven of clubs". Can A rectify his error?
Decision A is too late after B has played his sixth card. But prior to that A can rectify his error
Case XII
A (elder hand), has a tierce to a knave in clubs,good against the cards. He might also have had a tierce to a queen in hearts, but he has discarded from that suit. He calls a point in diamonds, and a tierce, but does not declare in what suit it is,nor to what card it is (Law 48). B (younger hand),plays on the supposition that the tierce is in hearts,and in consequence loses the cards. B then claims to play the cards again, on the ground that he has been misinformed (Law 59, par. V.), or, at least,that he has not been sufficiently informed.
Decision B has not been misinformed, and has no right to have the cards played again. He might have protected himself by asking A to show the tierce (Law 55), or, what amounts to the same thing, by asking to what card the tierce is.
Note As a matter of etiquette, it is usual among piquet players to volunteer information when there may be a doubt as to the nature of the claim. Thus the younger hand might have the point, good or equal, in more than one suit. After the elder hand has led a card, it would be in accordance with custom for him to say "In hearts," or whatever the suit may be; or, if he has a high card of his point out that might influence the play (his point nevertheless being good or equal), to show the cards.
In case no mention is made of the suit, the claim is generally understood, among players, to refer to the highest or best combination that can be held, in the case of the tierces, first given,to the tierce to a queen. If A and B are in the habit of playing on that tacit understanding,B has just cause of complaint, and A should endeavour to repair the injury inflicted on B, the simplest course probably being not to demur to B's request to play the cards again.
Similar observations apply to quatorzes and trios. Thus the elder hand has point and quart,both good, and might also have three kings and three tens, both good against the cards, but has put out a king. He should not call his hand thus :-" Five and four are nine, and three are twelve". He should say, "and three tens are twelve".
Case XIII
B (younger hand) accidentally takes up a card less than he discards. The mistake is discovered when the hand has been partly played out. B claims to take in the card he left on the table, the card in question not having been mixed with his discard.
Decision B can take up the card he left on the table, unless he has announced that he will leave a card, when he must play with eleven cards.If B has not renounced in the suit to which the card belongs, the hand proceeds in the usual way. If he has renounced, Law 59, par. IV., comes into operation.
Case XIV
The younger hand (B) discards and takes up the bottom three cards of the stock before the elder hand (A) has taken in. A then says, "I leave a card". What is the consequence?
Decision B having taken up a card of the stock cannot alter his discard; and, as in taking in he is obliged to take the cards in order from the top of the stock, including cards left by the elder hand, he must take the card left by A, must play with thirteen cards, and can reckon nothing that deal.
Case XV
The elder hand holds king, knave, ten, nine,eight, seven of diamonds. He calls six cards which are not good, and a quint minor which is good.
During the play of the cards, the elder throws ten, nine, eight, seven of diamonds. The younger hand then says, "How many diamonds ?" The elder replies, "Two". The younger, supposing that the reply is only as regards the quint, plays accordingly and loses the cards thereby. He then claims to play the end of the hand again under Law 59, par. V.
Decision The question can only be asked with regard to cards reckoned for or called as equal. The reply, therefore, can only be with regard to those cards. The younger hand has been misinformed, and can claim to play the end of the hand again.
Note This decision has been much disputed. Compare Case XVI.
Case XVI
In the contrary case, of a player's replying " One" (or whatever the number may be), when he has more which he has not declared, the adversary must take the reply to be in respect of cards reckoned as good or declared as equal.
For example: B (younger hand), who has discarded at least one spade, remains with three cards in hand, viz., ace, queen of hearts, and king of spades. He has not declared any point, aces, or queens, but has reckoned a quart minor in hearts. A (elder hand) has ace, queen of spades, and king of hearts. Before leading, he says, "How many hearts?" B replies, "None".No one disputes that B is justified in this, and that his reply is understood, by all piquet players, to mean, "None that I have declared".
Note In both this and the previous case the question put is irregular. It should strictly take this form, "How many of your quint ?" or, "How many of your quart ?" as the case may be. Or,the request may be, "Show me anything you have declared" (Law 55). But as the irregularity is permitted by custom, it is assumed that the player who has to answer will frame his reply with reference only to cards called as good or declared as equal. This consideration guides the decision in Case XV.
Case XVII
A has thirteen cards in his hand. He does not notice it, but discards five cards and takes in five.After he has taken in it is discovered that he has in his discard a card belonging to the undealt pack. A claims a fresh deal under Law 75.
Decision There is no proof that when the pack was dealt it was redundant. The surplus card may have got into A's hand or discard after the deal was completed. A is liable to the penalty for playing with thirteen cards, and can reckon nothing that deal.
Case XVIII
The facts are as in the previous case; but A keeps in his hand the card belonging to the undealt pack instead of discarding it.
Decision In this case, if A has not played the surplus card he may return it to the undealt pack, and there is no penalty, unless A has used this card in scoring anything that is allowed to be good, or in showing anything that is allowed to be equal, and has afterwards led a card. He is then liable to the penalty for an unfounded claim, and can reckon nothing that deal) subject however to the possibility of his having held what he claims, in his hand and discard taken together, as provided in Law 54). If the surplus card has been played prior to the discovery of the error, the hands must be taken up and played over again, the surplus card being first removed.
Case XIX
A plays with thirteen cards; B with twelve.
B wins the twelfth trick, and scores two for it.
A objects that the twelfth trick is not the last trick (Law 65), and that his thirteenth card, though not good to score, is good to bar the adversary (Law 58).
Decision The word "last," in Law 65, presupposes that each player has twelve cards. B is entitled to score two for the twelfth trick.
Case XX
A says, "Discard for carte blanche". While B is considering what he will put out, A places his discard face downwards on the table, and takes some cards of the stock. Can A then show his carte blanche ?
Decision Yes, provided he has not mixed any of the stock with his hand. He must show his hand and his discard separately, as, having taken up a card of the stock, he must not retake any card of his discard.
Case XXI
In continuation of the former case, B, on seeing A take up a card of the stock, says, "You have not shown your carte blanche". A replies, "No more I have," relinquishes the stock, mixes his discard with his hand, and is about to show the carte blanche, when B objects, that A having taken up a card of the stock, and then retaken his discard, must play with seventeen cards, and can reckon nothing that deal.
Decision B's contention is so far correct that A can reckon nothing after the carte blanche, which (so long as he has not mixed any of the stock with his hand) he is still at liberty to show and reckon. This score accrues before the play of the hand commences, and before any cards are taken in. Consequently, the law which bars a player from reckoning anything if he plays with too many cards does not apply to a carte blanche,
Case XXII
It is the last hand of a partie. A (elder hand) is sixty-two. B (younger hand) is ninety-two.
A holds ace, king, queen, knave, nine of spades; king, knave of hearts; knave of clubs; and ace, queen, knave, ten of diamonds. He has discarded eight, seven of hearts; eight,seven of clubs; and seven of diamonds.
B holds ten of spades; ace, queen, ten, nine of hearts; ace, king, queen, ten, nine of clubs; and king, nine, eight of diamonds (thirteen cards).
By mistake, he has only discarded two cards,viz., eight, seven of spades; and he has taken up together the three cards left in the stock. As he cannot alter his discard (Law 24), he is obliged to play with thirteen cards, and can reckon nothing that deal (Law 35).
The elder hand calls five cards, making fifty.The point is equal. The elder then calls a quart major, a tierce to a queen, and four knaves, good for twenty-one, and leads five spades. To the set the younger hand plays ten of spades, nine, ten, queen of hearts, and eight of diamonds.
It matters not now what the elder hand leads. As the cards happen to lie, he scores most by leading king of hearts. B wins with the ace, and plays five clubs and divides the cards.
The scores are, A, 91; B (who reckons nothing) 92. B wins a rubicon (Law 73) of 283 points.
Now if B had played with twelve cards, he would have lost a rubicon. This is easily proved by taking from B's hand the card of least importance to him, say the eight of diamonds. A leads five spades, as before. It is immaterial what B plays. A must win at least the last two tricks, and the cards, and scores forty.
The scores are, A, 102 ; B, 98 (at most); but as probably B has seen he cannot save the rubicon, it may be taken that he has let A count thirteen in play, when the score will be A: 106 ; B: 92. A wins a rubicon of 298 points. Hence B profits, by his own blunder, to the amount of 581 points. The example is taken from actual play.
Similar examples could be furnished as to the call of a player, with thirteen cards, barring a pique or a repique, and as to the extra card saving a capot.
The penalty of scoring nothing that hand, when a player has too many cards, may not only be no penalty at all, but may give the player in fault an overwhelming advantage. That this should be possible is a serious blemish in the game; and it is suggested that it should be provided against by future legislators.
It is the fashion to say that, in the long run, the habitually careless player will lose more than he will gain, by playing with the wrong number of cards. This appears to the Author to amount merely to a lame excuse for an inadequate law.