n another,
cuts for the privilege of entering in accordance with Rule 23, and
fails to cut in. At the end of the rubber, must he cut again?

DECISION

By his first cut he lost his rights at his former table and became a
member of the new table; at the end of the rubber he has the right to
enter without cutting.

CASE 6

The bidding in an Auction deal was as follows:--

_1st 2d 3d
Round Round Round_

North 3 Royals Redouble Double
East No No No
South 4 Hearts No Double
West Double 6 Clubs Claims new deal

The deal was played and resulted in the Declarer taking six tricks, a
loss of 600. The question is whether West's claim should be sustained
or this score counted, it being a part of the case stated that the
declaration which was the subject of complaint was made inadvertently.

DECISION

Law 54 provides that "A player cannot redouble his partner's double,"
but does not penalize such action. The prohibition is intended to
prevent an increase in the value of the tricks and a penalty is not
attached, as the additional double is generally a careless act, not
likely to materially benefit the offending player.

It goes without saying that any such double is most irregular, and any
suggestion of strength thereby conveyed will not be used by an
honorable partner. The same comment applies to the remark, sometimes
made, "Partner, I would have doubled if you had not."

A player repeatedly guilty of such conduct, or of intentionally
violating any other law, should be reprimanded, and, if the offense be
continued, ostracized.

In the case under consideration, this question does not arise, as it is
conceded that the act was simply an inadvertence. Even, however, had
its _bona fides_ been questioned, the decision would of necessity be
that the score be counted, as the laws do not provide a penalty for the
offense.

CASE 7

The bidding in an Auction deal was as follows:--

_1st 2d 3d 4th
Round Round Round Round_

North 1 Club 1 Heart 2 Hearts No
East 1 Diamond No Double No
South No No 3 Clubs
West No 2 Diamonds No

South claimed