Misinformation
In the Commentary on the Laws, Law 21, page 14, para 4, last sentence: 'This is a more challenging argument to make since neither North nor South are entitled to double just because they know E/W have had a bidding misunderstanding'.
Are N/S not entitled to double because they have got to know about E/W's misunderstanding only when East corrected the explanation? I cannot trace the law which covers this situation, i.e forbidding N/S from doubling. Can anybody let me know which law forbids this?
Comments
I don't think this sentance in the commentary is very well written.
There is no Law preventing N/S from doubling. However the situation referred to is where N has already passed and the director is considering allowing a change of call under Law 21B1a. To allow the change of the final pass (to a double) N would have to argue that after the sequence
2 !h (weak) - p - 4 !h - p - p - ? (i.e. without the misinformation) , then double would be a logical alternative.
If this change is not allowed the director can still adjust the score under 23B3 if they think that either N or S would not have passed at their earlier turns to call.
The section discusses the difference between:
2H (strong) - p - 4H - p - p (oh, wait, we play weak-twos) - x (on principle, since my hand is quite strong)
and
2H (strong) - p - 4H - p - p - p (Director please! We play weak twos and have had a misunderstanding)
I, too, find it a little strange that the offending side can avoid a larger loss by remaining quiet about their earlier misinformation. However, the laws do not require one to confess to an earlier infraction by one's own side.
The clarification period has now been reached and disclosure requires that they give correct information. The non-offending side didn't have the information during the auction that the 4H bidder was bidding on vapour and can't apply a penalty double or even come back in, purely on this new datum, since, during the auction, it wasn't apparent that he was weak. Of course, the director can adjust afterwards.
sentance sentence
Adjust to what, since North is not allowed to double because, as the Commentary says, neither North nor South are entitled to double.
In this example the offending side have not remained quiet, they have admitted to the erroneous explanation within the clarification period. By doing so they have left themselves open to a larger loss by being doubled. But according to the Commentary they can't be doubled!
The director can adjust to whatever they think would have happend if the auction had started with 2 !h , announced as weak.
So , depending on the hands, the auction might have gone
2 !h - x - 3 !h - 4 !s - p - p - p
or it might have gone
2 !h - x - 4!h - x - p - p - p
and in this case the score CAN be adjusted to 4 !h x minus however many.
What the director CANNOT do is allow the auction to reopen at 4 !h x unless North has a genuine X at that point in the OP.
2H strong - p - 4H -p
P * opps from 4H bidder, we play weak 2s.
The pass out seat knowing that 4H after a strong 2 is potentially very weak and certainly not strong can double yes? On the grounds that a misunderstanding has taken place and knowing that both hands are now on the weak side and likely bid too high?
If the 4H bidder waits until the final pass is made and then ooops, the ops cant double with the same knowledge. As they have to assume that after a weak 2H that responder will still bid 4H. That seems perverse.
If the 2H is announced as strong and then turns out to be weak, I cannot understand why the opponents cannot double 4H if 3 passes have not been made. They could have missed game in another suit.
Even if three passes have been made, why can't the opponent who passed last take back his pass and double after being told about the misunderstanding? That was my question, because the Commentary says he can't. What is implied in the Commentary is that he would have to justify his double based on his card holding, not based on his knowledge of the misunderstanding. To which my original question was, which law says that the opponent cannot double based only on his knowledge that the bidders have had a misunderstanding?
They can
I thought I had already answered this in my first post.
The conditions for changing a call based on misinformation are in Law 21B1a.
I think this comes under the negative inference of Law 20F
F. Explanation of Calls
1. During the auction and before the final pass any player may request7, at his own turn to call,
an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made,
about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from
the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the
instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made
the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a
supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating
Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.
So a player is not entitled to know there has been a bidding misunderstanding under this law. The only issue with this is Law 16A2 (Law 16A1a defines authorised information, which also seems to preclude knowledge of a bidding misunderstanding)
16A2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their
opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.
This I believe is interpreted that you are allowed to make use of the fact that your opponent hesitated during the auction or play i.e. they had a bridge reason to hestate - so, as you say, why can't you use the anguish on their faces when they realise they have made a bidding misunderstanding?
If the 2H bid had been announced as weak and raised to 4H, the other side would have no more reason to double than they did when it was announced as strong and raised to 4H. The double would not be made as a consequence of the misinformation.
The reason it is in the Commentary is because other people have also wondered about this and so it is clarified in the Commentary. No point therefore in looking to the Laws to support the Commentary when the Commentary is there to explain the Laws.