[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.