Bluejak is correct: we should look at Law 25. The call was not unintended, so Law 25A is not in point. Instead we consider the 2007 version of Law 25B:
Law25B said:
. Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.
2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.
The "modification of rectifications" section of the Screen Regulations says:
Quote
4(ii) if a player infringes the law, and inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screen-mate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it.
This leads to two questions:
1. Was the attempted change of call an irregularity? If so 4(ii) implies that in this case the substituted call may be accepted by offender's screenmate (his RHO).
2. Just because Law 25B says that the real LHO
may accept the change of call, does that give the LHO a
right to choose whether or not to accept it?