[Tomi2]

hi

lho: 1♦
pd: pass
rho: 1♦
me after a short while: TD

rho now claims he wanted to bid 1♥

my question now:

if this would be a case of unintended bidding, technical bidding box error etc. would rho be allowed to change his bid according to §25 or does §27 apply because he was unlucky to grab a non-legal bid so his change to a new suit would force his pd to pass?

Does §25 also apply after some seconds or just if the player who made the wrong bid finds out himself (directly)?

to this secific case there was the problem, that the responder had a flat hand with only 4hcp and 6 hearts. In his (polish club) system he would have to respond 1♦ to a 1♣ opener by pd. So there is doubt if the call was really unintented or if he has mistaken partners opeing, how should a director find out what the reason for the 1D bid was?

[blackshoe]

Ask the player who bid it.

Law 25A requires a couple of things: 1) the call was not intended, 2) as soon as the player realized he made a call he didn't intend to make, he changed or attempted to change it (calling the director is included in "attempted to change it"), 3) the player's partner has not yet called.

If the player convinces the TD the call was unintended, that it was also insufficient doesn't matter. The TD will allow the change of call, if the other criteria are also met.

If the TD does not allow the change of call, then Law 27 will be applied.

[barmar]

And it's generally considered acceptable that the TD call about the insufficient bid can wake the player up to the fact that they pulled the wrong card. When determining whether the attempt to correct was made "without pause for thought", we start the clock at the time he became aware, not when he made the unintended bid.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-August-06, 15:01, said:

And it's generally considered acceptable that the TD call about the insufficient bid can wake the player up to the fact that they pulled the wrong card. When determining whether the attempt to correct was made "without pause for thought", we start the clock at the time he became aware, not when he made the unintended bid.

That is correct.
But the manner he acted when he realized what he had done is also very important. If he shows (great) surprise in a way that indicates he never intended the call he made then a Law 25A ruling is almost automatic. If instead his manner indicates that he suddenly discovered he had selected a silly (or illegal) call then the ruling should rather tend towards the player changing his mind.
(The Director will often need some cooperation from the players when judging here)