[lamford]

---

4D was alerted (SPL) and South realised his error in passing almost immediately. The TD was called and ruled that it could be changed (25A1). I was North and did not think that was right and my partner's pass should have stood. What do readers think?

[pescetom]

You chose the right forum.

I think the TD should be required to requalify if he does not admit his error (25A2).

Although in many BBO tournaments this is considered normal.

[jillybean]

You should have asked the Director to read from TFLB.
club or online?

[mycroft]

I suggest South time-travel to the 1990s, when 25B2b2 applied [fixed reference, thanks Jilly]. Of course, when I gave those rulings, even the *offenders* didn't believe they had that option - which is at least one of the reasons why they no longer do.

I suggest an experienced E-W, should N-S be a new pair and not in a tournament, "request a waiver" (81C5). But of course, they need not do so, and the director shouldn't push; it's up to them whether the bar penalty is worth the top (or even guess that there would *be* no bar penalty).

Not sure what I suggest for the director - but I gave more than one 82C ruling in Penticton (granted, on less obvious situations than this, but at least one of them was a "of course I should have known that"), so I'm not really one to talk.

[jillybean]

27B talks about insufficient bid?

Yes, if South is a nervous newbie, we can let him make a bid.

Were the 82C's self imposed?

[mycroft]

Oh apologies, 25B2b2. Thanks for catching that. Sorry, directing Alzheimer's game today.

No, they were "judgement calls always are consulted" and the consultation made it clear that - well, I didn't do the right thing at the table (or didn't understand how 27B1a affects Alertability of a sequence, in one case).

"We discuss this in club director training" - yeah, thanks, I don't feel small enough already :-).

[lamford]

Face to Face. Thanks all. I agree completely that this is "loss of concentration". The (inexperienced) TD consulted the Chief TD and asked "A player made an unintended call; can he change it if he says this immediately?" and the Chief TD was playing so replied "yes".

[mycroft]

Quote

Law 25 Legal and Illegal Changes of Call

[...]

8.25.2 How to determine whether Law 25A applies
The main issue is whether the call made is unintended. It is not recommended that a TD should look at a player’s hand except as a last resort because the TD will give information about the hand. Best is to ask the player questions. Assuming bidding boxes, the most important question is: “What did you intend to call at the moment your hand reached out to the bidding box?”

Usually this question will elicit the information as to whether the player had made an unintended call (the call may be changed) or whether they had pulled out their originally intended call and subsequently there was a change of mind (the call may not be changed).

Wonder where I found that. For more information, please reread.(*)

To give the (playing) Chief TD credit, they were asked the wrong question, and they gave the correct answer to the question asked. With a little more time to think, I'm reasonably certain that "why am I being asked this? Oh, is [TD] sure it was 'unintended'?" would have passed through their brain, and would have asked the correct riposte (whether that be "what happened?" or "how do you know it was unintended?" or "what did they do and what did they intend to do?", or whatever came to mind).

(*)Wonderful publication, when do we get our version? But for the one person who's eyes just lit up, please read the immediately following section (8.25.3) for a classic example of "not to be used over here"!

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-June-28, 11:30, said:

Wonder where I found that. For more information, please reread.(*)

To give the (playing) Chief TD credit, they were asked the wrong question, and they gave the correct answer to the question asked. With a little more time to think, I'm reasonably certain that "why am I being asked this? Oh, is [TD] sure it was 'unintended'?" would have passed through their brain, and would have asked the correct riposte (whether that be "what happened?" or "how do you know it was unintended?" or "what did they do and what did they intend to do?", or whatever came to mind).

(*)Wonderful publication, when do we get our version? But for the one person who's eyes just lit up, please read the immediately following section (8.25.3) for a classic example of "not to be used over here"!

[EDIT: negative comment based upon misreading White Book deleted]

I do agree that the (playing) Chief TD was asked the wrong question, although I hope the fact that he was playing did not incide, because if not he should not be playing or not be Chief. Could not happen here.

We all get things wrong (whatever our level) but the important thing is to be ready to recognize it. A few months ago I penalized a card of Declarer, but hurried back to the table when it dawned upon me (nobody complained and luckily it did not damage).

[mycroft]

There's nothing wrong with that section at all. It is a perfectly valid RA decision to make on "when a call is made", and (most of) the rest of the world has gone with it (including the WBF? Don't know their BB regs ATM, but of course when every event is played with screens, those regulations matter more).

I actually happen to like it, and wish it were the regulation we have here in the ACBL. But for hysterical raisins (mostly "first mover"), it isn't, and for similar reasons it won't be.

As I said, the number of 25A from fumblefinger/fingernail catch/card stick cases go up significantly, but the 16/73 cases go down - as, I expect, do the "at or near the table, in an obviously played position" judgement calls and their attendant 20 cm-difference demonstrations that have to match "your 'short think' is their "long long *long* tank" is probably about 12 seconds"-level. (Oh, what am I saying? "of course it never left the box" vs "it was up and starting to turn". That game never gets old)

Just that, as the quoted page says (reversed to make the point), while a far wider audience will find it useful, the White Book is only official for events run by the EBU. And in this case, and many others, it will be a *massive* issue here in ACBL-land if it is read without reference to our regulations (and similarly, I'm sure, for FIGB).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-June-29, 10:23, said:

There's nothing wrong with that section at all. It is a perfectly valid RA decision to make on "when a call is made", and (most of) the rest of the world has gone with it (including the WBF? Don't know their BB regs ATM, but of course when every event is played with screens, those regulations matter more).

I actually happen to like it, and wish it were the regulation we have here in the ACBL. But for hysterical raisins (mostly "first mover"), it isn't, and for similar reasons it won't be.

As I said, the number of 25A from fumblefinger/fingernail catch/card stick cases go up significantly, but the 16/73 cases go down - as, I expect, do the "at or near the table, in an obviously played position" judgement calls and their attendant 20 cm-difference demonstrations that have to match "your 'short think' is their "long long *long* tank" is probably about 12 seconds"-level. (Oh, what am I saying? "of course it never left the box" vs "it was up and starting to turn". That game never gets old)

Just that, as the quoted page says (reversed to make the point), while a far wider audience will find it useful, the White Book is only official for events run by the EBU. And in this case, and many others, it will be a *massive* issue here in ACBL-land if it is read without reference to our regulations (and similarly, I'm sure, for FIGB).

You are quite right, sorry: I misread it as doing a U-turn on 25A interpretation which is not the case at all.
I fully agree, I like it too and wish it were the regulation we have here in FIGB (alas we are stuck with "on the table" and all the issues that ensue).

[jstbwk]

Imo any TD should be very alert when (s)he hears 'unitended call' and start inquiring. That's certainly true for a Chief TD when an inexperienced director comes with a question like in this case. "Unintended? Based on what did you decide that?" should have been asked. A simple "Yes" is unacceptable, how busy that Chief TD might have been at that moment.

[mycroft]

I think there's a question here about who the "chief TD" is, and their relation to the event.

Given the situation, I would believe that this is the chief TD of the EBU, currently playing in an event he is not in charge of. It is quite possible, instead, that they are the DIC of the event - but this session is off and is playing. But my guess is the former as the EBU does in fact have a "Chief Tournament Director" who we know at least occasionally plays (from other threads).

In which case:

You are defending 4♥x, and at trick 4 the TD of the event comes to you with an "inexperienced question" that, in context, needs an immediate answer (otherwise the TD wouldn't be bothering you during a hand! - and, when you hear it, it's clear that the TD has held up the auction at the other table while you're being asked). I would posit that *anyone*, trying to keep a difficult defence in their head while still doing a favour at what could easily be a club game (even if it's the YC club game), might just answer the question given and not immediately wonder *why* the question was being asked.

Now, there's an incredible amount of speculation in my posit. And of course, that might not be anywhere near the case. But I know, from decades in my "real" job, that I've given the obvious answer to the obvious question because I'm head deep in some deep coding or debugging issue and "obvious" was all the attention I could afford without losing an hour's worth of scaffolding. Any number of times. And I didn't have a partner to disappoint, and no "winning" except for Getting The Job Done. As, I'm sure, have pretty much everybody here, in their own specialities. And I can just imagine that - or something like that - happening.

[very off-topic: I got a call this weekend from a director about a simple misinformation call. Which turned out to not in fact be a problem, for reasons. But that "simple" misinformation call could (and probably will :-) be a final practical exam for directors if I phrased it in general; and probably with the complete set of specifics, would have taken me an hour to correctly rule on, had it happened in Penticton say. Were I to be playing at the time, instead of reading BBF?]

[jillybean]

Post the rephrased question please.

[axman]

lamford, on 2026-June-27, 12:57, said:

---

4D was alerted (SPL) and South realised his error in passing almost immediately. The TD was called and ruled that it could be changed (25A1). I was North and did not think that was right and my partner's pass should have stood. What do readers think?

I had a similar situation around the turn of the century

1N-P-2H*-P**-P***

• I alerted 2H
** RHO froze, asked and I told transfer to 2S, RHO spent 2 minutes of expressive body language before calling
*** I passed in tempo (<1/4sec) and less than 1/2sec realized what happened**** called the TD
**** normal ruling practice was victim calls TD to get permission for no penalty which is granted out of hand (this is in contravention of WBF1997). As I had not corrected my call without pause***** I normally would have kept my mouth shut, but this was my first occasion to have missed the window of grace and thought it an opportunity to test ruling tradition so I asked for an advisory ruling (noted above). Permission not granted. Finally, a ruling in accordance with law.

***** as it was, I saw blood because of RHO’s antics and I only wanted to get out of there

The reasoning being thus: seeking an advisory ruling is a pause (further it is thought since the choice of action depends on the advisory ruling). The scope of 25 being to act and if contested get a ruling.

Note: it is wrong headed for a correction sans penalty to turn upon the player’s call being unintended. A player should not (attempt to) change his call unless it appears he took but one call (as in the 2nd call was the intended call). In other words, the alacrity of correction is the evidence whether the correction appears to be a single call. Why? Mind reading is a fuzzy business that practically everyone is bad at.

Regarding today’s query: You did not give the basis for ruling nor your reasoning for thinking the ruling being incorrect. L25 is a mess****** and I am at a loss of what to make of it other than it is wrong headed. Neither am I inclined to mind read for the purpose of parsing this situation.

****** as near as I can discern L25A requires the changing side to be subject to UI consequences

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2026-July-07, 05:37, said:

****** as near as I can discern L25A requires the changing side to be subject to UI consequences

If I understand you correctly, this is not the case. When a player has made an unintended call and subsequently legally changes that call, in effect the original call, being unintended, never happened. There is no UI. See the WBF Commentary on the Laws, pp. 15 ff.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-July-07, 09:09, said:

If I understand you correctly, this is not the case. When a player has made an unintended call and subsequently legally changes that call, in effect the original call, being unintended, never happened. There is no UI. See the WBF Commentary on the Laws, pp. 15 ff.

I agree of course, and that is what I was taught year one in the TD course.

But I also agree that L25 is a mess in not making this (or the "only mechanical error" principal) clear.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-July-07, 09:09, said:

If I understand you correctly, this is not the case. When a player has made an unintended call and subsequently legally changes that call, in effect the original call, being unintended, never happened. There is no UI. See the WBF Commentary on the Laws, pp. 15 ff.

I agree of course, and that is what I was taught year one in the TD course.

But I also agree with axman that L25 is a mess in not making this (or the "only mechanical error" principal) clear.
The two are obviously closely linked.

As I said in another recent thread, the Commentary should filter down to the Laws, if not "immediately" at least in the next revision.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2026-July-07, 09:09, said:

If I understand you correctly, this is not the case. When a player has made an unintended call and subsequently legally changes that call, in effect the original call, being unintended, never happened. There is no UI. See the WBF Commentary on the Laws, pp. 15 ff.

L25A .....The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law, but the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply...

appropriate Law,

16C. When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.


<before attempting to find the reference>: L25A specifies "and is subject to the appropriate Law,". Which must parse that the replaced call (being withdrawn) has L16C2C1 consequences. By law the notion that the withdrawn call 'never happened' is codswallop and contrary to L80B2f.

<Having found>
"This leaves us to deal with unintended calls, a regular phenomenon when playing with bidding
boxes, where a wrong card is pulled out of the box and put on the table. As long as partner has
not made a call after such an irregularity the mistaken bidding card can be put back and replaced
by the intended call. Such action in itself does not create unauthorized information since the
wrong card doesn’t carry bidding information. It is deemed never to have happened. "

The polite comment is that it is rubbish.

1st 'pulling the 'wrong bidding card' is not an irregularity (unless an 'illegal call' in and of itself) and is reason to scrutinize the authority of its source.

The notion that something that happened never happened defies credulity. Deeming something so which is not is of Never NeverLand.

The L25A standard for permission to correct a call subject to the consequences of L16C is that there was a call that was intended but a different one was made. As such, there is no specification for finding what the intended call was but for the player's assertion- the law thus invites players to tell porkies. My experience is that they come by the boatload. And, for that matter, mind reading is neither a prudent method nor efficient way to litigate it.