MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL
After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as follows:
Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information
Irrespective of whether or not an explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, a player, having heard his partner’s explanation, knows that his own call has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is unauthorized information (see Law 16A) and the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage from it (see Law 73C); otherwise the Director shall award an adjusted score.
- When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score.
- If a player becomes aware of his own mistake, he must summon the Director before the opening lead is faced (or during the play, if discovered later), and then provide a correction. The player is also permitted to call the Director before the auction ends, but he is under no obligation to do so (see Law 20F4).
- The player’s partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player’s partner is to be declarer or dummy, he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction.
When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently. Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].
- Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1); failure to do so constitutes Misinformation.
- It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.
- When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.