[blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency

[Robert Frick]

Bob:

I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, which LHO chooses not to
accept. I pull the insufficient bidder away from the table, where he  
reveals
to me that his bid was inadvertent -- a slip of the fingers. I decide not  
to
allow a change by law 25 (because this law requires, not only that the
attempt to change the bid be made without time for thought, but also that
there be an attempt to change the bid.)

ton:
It is always interesting to be educated in our laws. Please Bob tell me why
I have to read L25A in such a way that there needs to 'be an attempt to
change the bid' to apply this law.

Bob:
L25A "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."

  I can't see any ambiguity on this. Are we miscommunicating somehow? I  
will try to answer the question anyway.

To try to use a different sentence with the same underlying structure,  
suppose your invitation says "You may attend if you register before June  
1." I think everyone would understand this as saying that you have to  
register. If you didn't have to register, the invitation would say "You  
may attend. If you register, it must be before June 1." Similarly, the law  
does not say "a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended  
call. If he does so, or attempts to do so, it must be without pause for  
thought."

So suppose LHO calls the director and explains that the player's bid is  
insufficient. I pull the player aside and the player explains that the bid  
was inadvertent. Do I offer him the choice of changing it? Do I follow  
standard protocol and explain his choices to him? Suppose I explain what  
happens if he changes his bid using 25A versus when he doesn't and then  
Law 27 kicks in. I still at the end have to ask him if he wants to  
substitute his intended call for his unintended call. If he says yes, I  
guess that counts as his attempt to change his call. (Then I have to  
decide it if was made without pause for thought. I am thinking that there  
was pause for thought.)

But if he never answers my question, then again I am stuck with no reason  
to apply Law 25A. One way or another, there has to be an attempt to change  
the inadvertent bid. The exception would be if you as director are going  
to step in and unilaterally change it, but that clearly contradicts the  
"may" in Law 25A.