[SnootyMan]

---

Immediately after bidding 2♦, East blurted UI to the effect that they'd made the wrong bid.
Someone called the director.
East told the director privately that their intent was to transfer into clubs.

If I were directing I would have been guided by this:


'Law 25A1 Unintended Call
If a player discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make, he may,
until his partner makes a call, substitute the call he intended for the unintended call.
The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law, but the
lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.'


If you open 1♠ with 1=5=4=3 shape, this law allows you to replace your 1♠ bid with 1♥.
If you are trying to transfer to your long club suit, surely accidentally writing down 2♦ is treated the same way.
The UI makes this situation a little more complex. I feel that the ruling hinges on their methods, and to some degree, their ability.
I would have isolated East and then West, asking what methods they play over 1NT.
If they both explain the same way to show clubs, I think the laws dictate you should let East change their call to show clubs.
Is that correct?

What happened:
The director called me after the session to get feedback on their ruling.
The director didn't think law 25A1 applied in this situation.
The director advised Opener to ignore the UI, so Opener accepted the transfer to hearts.
The director then told North-South to call him back at the end of the hand if they felt that they'd been disadvantaged, and walked away.

---

Responder rebid 3♣, which Opener passed. Why correct back to your nine card heart fit when you know partner hasn't got hearts?
Much better to play in 3♣ down 1. That was a fantastic score for East-West.
East held 5(!)♣, 4♦ and 4 HCP. Choosing to show this hand as a single-suited minor was bizarre, but it happened to pay out.

Opener benefited from the UI. If Opener had bid ethically and corrected to hearts, they'd likely have scored no better than -300 (3♥ or 5♣ going down three), for 0%.
That was the ruling my friend gave.

How would you have handled it and how would you have ruled?

[pescetom]

I would have ruled much the same way as your Director. You forgot to quote A2. An intention to show clubs is not an intention to make the call 2♠ (or whichever specific call they thought shows clubs in their agreements) and they do not deserve benefit of the doubt on that unless they at least mention the intended call explicitly, preferably with a convincing explanation of the error too.

I think Director did a fair job of handling it. I would have remained at the table at least until the end of the auction and also during play if I had time. If 3♥ were not a likely bottom I would also have checked their agreements after 3♣ to see if 4♥ was an LA, but that sounds superfluous here.

There is a potential complication in that you mentioned "writing down". Whereas with a bidding box I would have no doubt about L25 (both because player did not mention 2♠ or difficulty with the bidding cards and because it is quite an unlikely mechanical error to leave out 2♦ instead) I have no experience with written bidding: your RA may have specific guidance (or case law) about how to adjudicate such situations during written bidding.

[blackshoe]

If in fact Law 25A is ruled to apply, then East's blurt is not UI, because the ruling will be that in effect the unintended bid never happened. The blurt is still extraneous, but not UI.

If in EW's methods East's 3♣ is forcing, then West did use UI when he passed it.

I'm not familiar with written bidding either. Was it in use here?

The first sentence of Law 25A1 says If a player discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make, he may, until his partner makes a call, substitute the call he intended for the unintended call. IMO the best way for players to deal with their unintended call is to simply correct it without saying anything, or perhaps just saying "oops, wrong call" or the like. Opponents will call the director, who should then be told the first call was unintended. Note that if the TD rules that 25A does not apply, Law 25B will apply:

Quote

B. Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).
2. Except as in B1, a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).
3. Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.

Law 26 has to do with lead restrictions.

[barmar]

An unintended call for the purposes of 25A1 is usually meant to refer to mechanical errors -- you meant to pull the 2♥ card from the box, but your finger slipped or the cards got stuck so you actually pulled 2♠. It doesn't usually include slips of the mind. It's hard to see how you can accidentally pull 2♦ if you meant to show clubs.

Someone brought up written bidding. While I've never used it, it seems like it should be mostly immune from unintended calls, which may be why some jurisdictions prefer it (the equipment also takes up less space).

[mycroft]

Relevant Laws:

Law 25 said:

A1. If a call is made by a player that was not intended and if it is discovered before partner makes a call, it may be substituted with the intended call. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law, but the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply.
2. [bIf the player’s original intent was to make the call selected or voiced[/b], that call stands. A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not
because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action.
B. Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and
the auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

The WBFLC Commentary says this:

Quote

It is sometimes not easy to determine whether a call is unintended. The TD should only decide it was unintended if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split second, wanted to make that call. The mistake has to be entirely one of fingers, not brain! An example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was intended is the following:

Example 19: North opens 1♥, Pass by East and South bids 4♣, a splinter showing slam interest in hearts. West passes and North thinks for a while, before coming to the conclusion that he is not going to make a move towards slam. But he forgets that no one has bid 4♥ yet and passes, immediately discovering his mistake and calling the TD.

North will tell the TD that he never intended to pass, but the TD should not accept this statement. For a split second, North thought that his pass was closing the auction in 4♥. He never intended to play in 4♣, but that is not the relevant consideration.

A theme in the 2017 Laws is improvement in wording. Law 25A2, and its play-period cousin Law 45C4(b), now use phrases such as “loss of concentration” to help Directors explain why they have or have not allowed a player to change a call.

My emphasis throughout.

I'm just reiterating what my Italian colleague said, but with the quotes. My version of this is "going from not thinking to thinking is a change of mind." (I like "loss of concentration"; I should make an effort to use that).

I also agree with pescetom that with boxes, it is unlikely that someone wanted to pull out 2♠ but 2♦ came out (2♥, yes. 1♠, probably. But not 2♦ and definitely not pass). With written bidding you don't have that, and there is an argument that they meant to write "S" and "D" came out. Especially with clubs (if they were playing 2♠ as "bad hand in a minor" and had diamonds, I'd be much less likely to believe pencil error rather than brain error). But it's the same as writing "1S" with 1=5=4=3; no more unlikely, no less (whereas, with bidding boxes, it is *much more* unlikely).

The director makes their judgement - in either case - noting the level of belief the Laws Commission expects the director to require.

Just because a similar case is similar doesn't mean it's the same.

In fact, just because the cards on the table/written in the box are the same doesn't mean that the ruling is the same: say the auction was instead 1♣-1♠ "I meant to bid 1♥." Now, at the first table, the bidder has 1=5=4=3. Yeah, I probably believe them. At the second table, partner has 5=1=4=3 and is playing transfer Walsh. They're going to have a harder time convincing me they pulled the wrong card rather than bidding what they could see and then ohnoseconding "transfers" (or even "right, partner bid clubs not diamonds"). They probably *will* convince me, but it won't be auto.

After the ruling was 25A2, I absolutely agree that passing 3♣ with 4 hearts "has a LA not suggested by the UI that would be less successful" and that the pass *was* demonstrably suggested by the UI. If they believe that -300 is the best score they're going to get (and I'd probably be thinking a piece of -500 in 4♣x after 3♥ is doubled, or -800 when they clue in to double 5♣, rather than -3 undoubled in either contract), then that should be the assigned score, if the director believes that 25A1 does not apply.

When the offenders complain that that would never happen IRL and the opponents don't deserve a windfall from East's "ohnosecond" or "inability to hide the problem", ask them when the last time they benefited from declarer forgetting that just because the finesse won, didn't mean the King isn't out there and failing to take the finesse *again*. And then ask what the difference is just because the director was at the table this time.

It absolutely is a tricky situation, and as always, I will not gainsay the table director's judgement on "unintended" from behind a computer on the other side of the world. I wasn't there, they were. I certainly will not gainsay the table director's judgement on things that happen with written bidding, as I have never directed a game with written bidding. Again, as pescetom says, the ABF or NZBL may have regulations or "best practises" about this that I've never seen. If not, they should :-).

[mycroft]

Interestingly, I went and looked. The ABF interpretation document discusses 25A1 in detail, but doesn't mention written bidding at all (note, I could easily have missed a different document (*)). It does, however end with this sentence:

Quote

It is only really the Director who attends the table who can ever be in a position to judge when Law 25A is applicable.

(*)There's this one about written bidding and bidding boxes, but nothing specific for 25A in the written bidding section.

[jillybean]

SnootyMan, on 2026-January-26, 04:59, said:

The director then told North-South to call him back at the end of the hand if they felt that they'd been disadvantaged, and walked away.

You can't force players to be ethical or read the FLB, players who do both are disadvantaged.

So you called to Director back, and?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2026-January-26, 11:15, said:

It is only really the Director who attends the table who can ever be in a position to judge when Law 25A is applicable.

Mycroft>>WBF>> The TD should only decide it was unintended if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split second, wanted to make that call.

Not addressing the improvident and wrongheaded law, but this instruction is barmy for its impertinence. What a person has excluded from contemplation does not control the status of inadvertency. It is whether the action taken comports with the intended action. After all, it is conceivable that there was no intended action at the time of the act.


Mycroft>>ABF>> It is only really the Director who attends the table who can ever be in a position to judge when Law 25A is applicable.

Thems fightin words. For a given occasion it is possible for someone other than a TD to judge if a particular passage of law is applicable. For the very reason that the law is written down that others may judge if the TD judged correctly or incorrectly.

[pescetom]

axman, on 2026-January-26, 13:15, said:

Mycroft>>WBF>> The TD should only decide it was unintended if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split second, wanted to make that call.

Not addressing the improvident and wrongheaded law, but this instruction is barmy for its impertinence. What a person has excluded from contemplation does not control the status of inadvertency. It is whether the action taken comports with the intended action. After all, it is conceivable that there was no intended action at the time of the act.

Not speaking for my Canadian/Mexican colleague (who probably even knows how to quote laws on a cell phone, unlike me ) and I might even agree that L25 is wrongheaded (probably not for the same reasons), but the instruction seems both necessary and wise to me. If there was no intended action then this was not a mechanical error or any other event that merits a change of call.

axman, on 2026-January-26, 13:15, said:

Mycroft>>ABF>> It is only really the Director who attends the table who can ever be in a position to judge when Law 25A is applicable.

Thems fightin words. For a given occasion it is possible for someone other than a TD to judge if a particular passage of law is applicable. For the very reason that the law is written down that others may judge if the TD judged correctly or incorrectly.

I don't think ABF was asserting that only a Director can judge, but that Director has to be at table to judge.
I agree and the questioning can be delicate, you need to be there to judge the player's reactions.

[SnootyMan]

My director friend checked it with a nationally qualified director. His wording was somewhat neutral.

Does 25A1 apply in this auction?
'Some directors would interpret that it does. That would be reasonable.'

What would you rule?
'I think your ruling (3H-3 for 0%) achieved the right result, but I wouldn't have let them play below 4H, and I'd have considered whether it would be doubled, and how the play might have gone for players of that calibre rather than just looking at a double dummy result.

Also, I'd have talked to East away from the table asking a different set of open-ended questions to understand their intentions and methods. That would inform my ruling.'

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

[pescetom]

SnootyMan, on 2026-January-26, 15:03, said:

My director friend checked it with a nationally qualified director. His wording was somewhat neutral.

Does 25A1 apply in this auction?
'Some directors would interpret that it does. That would be reasonable.'

What would you rule?
'I think your ruling (3H-3 for 0%) achieved the right result, but I wouldn't have let them play below 4H, and I'd have considered whether it would be doubled, and how the play might have gone for players of that calibre rather than just looking at a double dummy result.

Also, I'd have talked to East away from the table asking a different set of open-ended questions to understand their intentions and methods. That would inform my ruling.'

FWIW I agree with the second half of this reply.
My questioning of East away from the table would be intentionally open-ended and I gave your TD benefit of the doubt that his was so.
As I implied I would have considered 4♥, even a penalty to West too, but it depends upon the calibre of all players which does not look strong.

Was this written bidding and do you, your Director friend or your "nationally qualified" friend of friend have anything to say about how that might affect things?
Just curious as I never met this issue.

[jillybean]

Where in the world did this occur?

[mycroft]

I have had several people mention I have been a bit tetchy this past couple of weeks. I am trying to pay attention to this. I am probably failing.

Pescetom, I was agreeing with you in (I believe) all respects; quoting the laws and commentary was just making it clear. If there was any tone of "how dare you not bring the receipts", it was not intended and I apologize. I do in fact know how to quote Laws on a cell phone; but I almost never am on BBO Forums on my phone (and almost never when there reply, waiting until I get back to my computer later), so I simply had an easy option that for you was difficult.

Axman, we have had disagreements about communication and the information content required for communication to be of relevance before, and, well, we still do. But the intent of the Law is "if what came out was not what you meant to do *at the time you were doing it*, then that communication has no relevant information content, and, once corrected, can be ignored. However, if for whatever reason (and I remember the baleful 1997 Law that tried to deal with "I passed the blackwood response, because we don't have 6. I mind-lapsed the fact that we weren't in the right trump suit. Clearly it's dumb to be forced to play the 2-1 fit instead of the +450 we should get". And how stupid it was. And how incredulous the players were (even the "offenders") when I offered them their 40% in similar situations) they thought their action was the right one (or didn't think, and are now thinking), sorry, you intended it - just like any other lapse of concentration.

And the quote from the ABF is simply an official restatement of my (common) statement here - "I'm not going to gainsay the director at the table. They were there, I was not." And the reason is obvious - they want the DIC and AC to assume this as well. You can make your own judgement on the facts as presented (by the OP, or the "jobbed player" in the bar after the game, or the OtherSite story); that's perfectly fine and allowed. But as far as changing a L25A1 "yes or no" decision? The table director, based on their investigation at the table, at the time, is the only one who can truly judge it. And they did. A good director, should they be unsure, or should a new argument be made after that offers doubt, would be expected to discuss with the DIC or with other directors; if that director is then convinced their judgement was even potentially faulty, Law 82C is still there in all its glory. But the ABF says its appeal process isn't going to overrule the table director's judgement unilaterally, because they weren't at the table. [Note: this is all my speculation and interpretation. If I'm reading it wrong, the ABF's interpretation obviously applies.]

I am surprised that given the case law by the WBF, the ABF, and the ACBL about how likely or unlikely a pull of a card next to vs not next to vs other pocket of the bidding box is to be "inadvertent" rather than "lapse of concentration", that no similar guidance exists in the Written Bidding Regulation. Of course, it could just be "everybody knows" and is in a different place I can't find (and why should I need to know?)

[SnootyMan]

This happened in Australia. Bidding pads are still commonly used below a knockout level, though bidding boxes are becoming more common.

'Does the fact that it was written bidding affect the ruling?'
When the laws were updated in 2017 I have a memory that the Australian Bridge Federation advised that the ruling is often identical. I wish I could remember it clearly, if I get clarification I'll post it.

1NT (P) 2♦, when Responder held 5♠.
I'm pretty sure the ABF suggested that Responder's bid can be changed to 2♥, as it would if you had pulled out the wrong bid from the bidding box.

I doubt the same holds true if Responder holds five hearts and bids 2♥ (transfer to spades), and wants to change it to 2♦ (transfer to hearts), because the mis-bid is consistent with forgetting you play transfers.

I'll ask one of our best directors to elaborate next time I bump into them. If anyone gets a clear succinct answer from an authority in the meantime that would be helpful.

[pescetom]

@Mycroft, I had no issue with your tone (this time, and we all have bad days). And if you could explain in PM how to quote laws on an Android phone I would be really grateful.
In any case, thanks for "ohnoseconding"

[pescetom]

 SnootyMan, on 2026-January-27, 00:19, said:

This happened in Australia. Bidding pads are still commonly used below a knockout level, though bidding boxes are becoming more common.

'Does the fact that it was written bidding affect the ruling?'
When the laws were updated in 2017 I have a memory that the Australian Bridge Federation advised that the ruling is often identical. I wish I could remember it clearly, if I get clarification I'll post it.

1NT (P) 2♦, when Responder held 5♠.
I'm pretty sure the ABF suggested that Responder's bid can be changed to 2♥, as it would if you had pulled out the wrong bid from the bidding box.

I doubt the same holds true if Responder holds five hearts and bids 2♥ (transfer to spades), and wants to change it to 2♦ (transfer to hearts), because the mis-bid is consistent with forgetting you play transfers.

If we were to rule out mechanical error merely because the mis-bid is consistent with a forget or actually holding the suit bid then there would be virtually no bids replaced
At lower levels (not to mention BBO with Undo enabled), even simple showing of two natural suits is common. I actually find it reassuring (although disappointing from the SB point of view) that there is not more creative abuse of this Law, or even much readiness to simply lie that "I had a problem with the bidding box".

As for written bidding, my problem in judging is that I have no experience of it nor even an idea of how it works. I can imagine several ways, each with its own problems, such as:
1. One writes the call and passes the pad to LHO
2. One writes the call, announces it and passes the pad to LHO
3. One writes the call and replaces the pad in the centre of the table where the others can read it before LHO takes it and does the same.
I like solution 1 because it reduces UI considerably, but I would suspect it was refused by all for the same reason Of course it has problems of speed and explanations too.
Solution 2 has the problem that the announcement and the written call may not coincide, or somebody may claim this occurred.
Solution 3 sounds near unworkable given the handwriting and eyesight of today's elderly players.
But only solution 3 seems to offer a clear opportunity to notice that one has made a call different from that intended? If I cannot see the call I made then I can hardly become aware that it is not what I intended to write.
Solution 2 effectively excludes a mechanical error if I announced and wrote the same thing, but if they differ then the problem comes back in through the window. But there would surely be a regulation in this case.
Of course you get the double strike opportunity by leaving a legible deletion too. Again there must surely be regulation or guidance.

[mycroft]

SnootyMan, on 2026-January-27, 00:19, said:

This happened in Australia. Bidding pads are still commonly used below a knockout level, though bidding boxes are becoming more common.

'Does the fact that it was written bidding affect the ruling?'
When the laws were updated in 2017 I have a memory that the Australian Bridge Federation advised that the ruling is often identical. I wish I could remember it clearly, if I get clarification I'll post it.

My source of confusion is, specifically, that 1♠ is next to 1NT, and a known fault of bidding boxes is that either finger(nail)s catch the extra bit, or the cards are slightly sticky or there's an edge on the 1♠ card that grabs the 1NT one when it's pulled out (or even static), and it comes out when 1NT was 100% intended(*). However, the chance that 1NT was pulled and 1♦ came out, or 2♠, is much lower.

However with written bidding, there isn't a difference between "H" and "D" when intending to write 2S. It's the same action. So I would think that "often identical" would not include elements of "looks like the finger grabbed the wrong card/card came out with" that happen with bidding boxes. In fact I would expect that there would be guidance, and it would be different; but with no experience, what it would *be*, I have no clue.

(*) Yes, yes, if you so commonly play with screens that doing the "pick the card out of the box" is your default, you don't have this problem (as much). As a director who has to deal with the pairs following you, however, who "need a new box because they can't bid 2♥" ("Oh we always put all the cards back properly". Then why do I have to fix, on average, two a session?), and the number of people who I believe *actually* do this to show off "how advanced they are, they play with screens", the penalty I want to impose on them is "You must bring your own bidding box to the game, and if you're E-W, you must *only* use it." :-)