|
A. |
Special
Partnership Agreements |
|
Special partnership agreements, whether
explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents
(see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner
through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions
of the current deal. |
|
|
B. |
Violations
of Partnership Agreements |
|
A player may violate an announced partnership
agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but
habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements,
which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose
to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if
the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false
inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress. |
|
|
C. |
Answering
Questions on Partnership Agreements |
|
When explaining the significance of partners
call or play in reply to an opponents inquiry (see Law
20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed
to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but
he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and
experience. |
|
|
D. |
Correcting
Errors in Explanation |
|
1. |
Explainer Notices
Own Error |
|
|
If a player subsequently realises that
his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately
call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or
Law 40C). |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Error Noticed by
Explainers Partner |
|
|
A player whose partner has given a mistaken
explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may
he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender
may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director
at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is
to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender),
the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partners
explanation was erroneous (22). |
|
|
(22) Two examples may clarify
responsibilities of the players (and the Director) after a misleading
explanation has been given to the opponents. In both examples following,
North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds,
has bid 2¨, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in
answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial,
asking for major suits.
Example 1 - Mistaken Explanation
The actual partnership agreement is that 2¨ is a natural signoff;
the mistake was in North's explanation. This explanation is an infraction
of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of
the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage
to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North
subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify
the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation
while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is
to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer
a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls
the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.
Example 2 - Mistaken Bid
The partnership agreement is as explained - 2¨ is strong and artificial;
the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is no infraction of Law,
since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South
agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South
hands.
(Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand;
but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken
Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct
North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has
no responsibility to do so subsequently.
In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that
his own 2¨ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorised
information'' (see Law 16A), so South must be careful not to base
subsequent actions on this information (if he does, the Director shall
award an adjusted score). For instance, if North rebids two no trump,
South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies
a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility
is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak
response, showing maximum values. |
|