Hi Nick.

A similar thing happened to me recently but it was the opponents who made a call. They bid 3D and my partner thought it said 5, so he bid 5H. This put me in a quandary as bypassing 4H as he did is saying go to 6H with 1 of the top 2. I did, but passed as I realised he had misread the bid (partner of the 3D bidder asked my partner "is that 5?" he replied "I had to bid 5 over the 5D" which alerted us all to the misread).

I wonder if 21B1a applies in my situation - is an unclearly written bid by the opposition that has been misread considered misinformation? 20A though says "A player may require clarification forthwith if he is in doubt what call has been made." Does that mean he has forfeited his right to go back and change it because he didn't. It really did look like a 5 and wasn't an unreasonable bid (although the stop card wasn't used).

So I'm not sure if Law 25 applies. I think if you misread your partner's bid that is probably a lesson - partner should write clearly and you should ask if it is not (one of my regular partners has marginal handwriting and I ask him at least once a session what it says!) If opponents make an unclear bid as in my situation then I think if you realise then you have the right to change it as per Law 21.

I'm not sure if there is anything that specifically states what happens with bad handwriting. It does come up at times so if anyone can point to something in the Law Book or Manual that would be helpful.

Ed

From the description it sounds like the player fully intended the call they made because of a mistake they made in reading their partner's call.  So, no change under 25A1:

"Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law."

I think this is a nice example illustrating what "intended" means.

The 2017 law 25A makes it explicit that only unintended calls may be changed.

"1. 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.

2. If the player’s original intent was to make the call selected or voiced, 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.

3. A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in A1 above are met, no matter how he may have become aware of his error."

If the mistake were occasioned by bad handwriting or similar then the director might mention (to the whole table, by way of general advice) Law 20A Call Not Clearly Recognized  A player may require clarification forthwith if he is in doubt what call has been made.  But the ruling, in this case, would seem to follow from the Regulations (Manual D 27.6) and/or the laws referred to there:

"All calls must be made in neat, legible, handwriting. Where there is any doubt about what is written, Players should seek verbal clarification. A Player has no redress if he/she has made a call based on his/her own misunderstanding (Law 21A). However, if, in the opinion of the Director, a Player has made a call as a result of an opponent’s illegible handwriting, Law 21B applies. The Director's decision is final."

I take it that this means that in this case you are out of luck if it was partner's bad handwriting, but LHO's bad handwriting may be construed by the director as misinformation.

"LHO's bad handwriting" should have been "RHO's" or "opps bad handwriting".

I think the Manual reference is what Ed was after.  The way this forum is set out I sometimes reply without having read what has already been been written...

Hi Ed

Your questions are answered in the appendix ("Written bidding") in the Manual

Basically it says all parts of Law 21 apply

And it starts with "All calls MUST be made in neat legible handwriting"

The use of the word "must" (rather than "shall" or "should") suggests the benefit of any doubt should go to the opponents of the one who wrote the bid which was mis-read.

But the grey area is because Law 25 might over-ride this (if "over-ride" is the right word for something which would apply first :)

I'm wondering whether this applies in my example

I would like to see others views on this, or (preferably, if possible) a clear guide in the Manual or Lawbook

Nick

Peter: "The way this forum is set out I sometimes reply without having read what has already been been written..."

I just did that 

Nick

Thanks Peter and Nick.

I read all the replies  and the reference in the Manual is indeed what I was after. I agree Peter - in Nick's case bad luck, in mine there could have been a change.

Cheers

Ed

This is one reason why I love the bidding boxes! 

Cheers

Helene