[blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns.

[Robert Frick]

Is this analogy relevant? Suppose there is a club lead out of turn by  
defender. The declarer would like to insist on the lead of a club. But  
first, declarer wants to know if the player on lead has a club. Of course.  
So that declarer would like it very much if I as director peeked into the  
defender's hand and then explained what would happen if declarer insists  
on the lead of a club.

Similarly, when there is an insufficient bid, the laws require me to tell  
LHO his/her options, which are to accept the bid or not accept the bid.  
LHO might want me to peek at the insufficient bidder's hand and volunteer  
important information for making that decision, but I don't think I am  
obligated to do so.

(I do have to "explain", but I think that means just explaining what  
happens when the lead is accepted or not. "The auction might seem strange,  
but..." Also, I cannot believe that a director would voluntarily explain  
all of Law 27 to LHO, but even then the director would say something like  
"and lead penalties may apply" and leave out a complete description of Law  
26.)

(I understand that in some places, the tradition is to inform LHO if there  
is a nonbarring replacement call. I am suspecting that they might want to  
abandon that tradition because of 27B1(b).)