[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[David Burn]

[Gampas]

The big difference is that in 25A cases he never intended to bid what he
actually placed on the table, while in cases of e.g. mistaken vulnerability
he _intended_ his original bid, and now learns that he should have had a
second look. In the first case we have a mechanical error, in the second a
mental one. Different kettle of fish altogether.

[David Barton]

Why?

What laws are you applying?

[DALB]

Law 25A says that:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call
for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so,
without pause for thought.

When the player opened 1NT, he intended to open 1NT. Thus, the only call he
may substitute for 1NT is 1NT.

David Burn
London, England