Questions of fact should be settled before the case is referred, either by a majority of the players, or, if they are divided in opinion, by an onlooker agreed to by both parties, the decision of this referee being final.
When the facts are agreed to they should be written down, and the written statement submitted to the judge, who should return a written answer.
Should it so happen that a case is referred, wherein the players are divided in opinion as to the facts, the arbitrator will do well to decline to give a decision. The disputants, however, may be reminded that the player whom it is proposed to punish is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Questions of interpretation of law should be decided liberally, in accordance with the spirit rather than the letter of the law. On the other hand, the arbitrator should bear in mind the great inconvenience of a lax interpretation of card laws, and, having made up his mind as to the intention of the law, should decide all cases with the utmost strictness.
The following cases, with decisions, selected from a large number which have been brought under the author's notice as having occurred in actual play, are given in exemplification of the foregoing remarks.
CASE I.
The play of the hand shows that AB (partners) hold no honour. The hand is therefore abandoned and the adversaries (YZ) score the game. It is then discovered that Y has only twelve cards, and one of the honours is found on the floor. AB then object to the score on the ground that YZ only "held" three honours (vide Law 3).
Decision—YZ are entitled to score four by honours. Y is not obliged to play with his cards in his hand. Besides, the game having been abandoned, Law 59 comes into operation. The penalty for playing with twelve cards is laid down in Law 46. Y is liable for any revoke he may have made.
CASE II.
AB claim "the game" and score it. After the trump card of the following deal is turned up, YZ object that AB have not claimed honours (vide Laws 6 and 7).