W B F Laws Committee

Meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997

Present:	Ton Kooijman, in the Chair
		Jens Auken		Chip Martel
		Max Bavin		Dan Morse
		Grattan Endicott	Rebecca Rogers
		Santanu Ghosh	William Schoder
					John Wigna11

Apologies for absence: The President of the WBF
		Virgil Anderson
		Claude Dadoun
		Robert Wolff (joined the meeting near its conclusion)

Not present in Hammamet: Ralph Cohen, Carlos Cabanne, David 
Davenport, Robert Howes, Jeffrey Polisner

Proceedings:

1 The Chairman opened the meeting with a warm tribute to the work 
of the late Edgar Kaplan He had dominated the field of bridge law 
for decades without ever wishing to dominate.  The Chairman 
went on to thank Mr Wignall for suggesting the meeting and to 
note that Mr Endicott had agreed to undertake the written work for 
the committee.

2 Various members of the committee endorsed a move to improve 
communications and to consult the full committee on subjects that 
arise. It was agreed to open e-mail links to all members via 
Grattan Endicott gester@glonalnet.co.uk  Members were invited to 
furnish Mr Endicott with their e-mail addresses.

3 The Committee agreed that it should explore the subject of 
Copyright in the laws, both for duplicate bridge and for rubber 
bridge.

4 The question of screen procedures was discussed. The committee 
was unsure whether the procedures recommended in the document 
produced in Rhodes had been approved by the Executive Council, 
but it was noted that they had been adopted in the WBF General 
Conditions of Contest.

5 Mr Schoder remarked upon Edgar Kaplan’s skills in separating 
out the concerns of the committee from those of other bodies, 
avoiding trespass in other areas of responsibility.  He invited the 
committee post-Kaplan to further this aspect of his methods.

6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C.  He 
pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been 
published.  Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by 
Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference 
of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read 
out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had 
indicated.

The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that 
the sentence in 71C beginning “Until the conceding side..." does 
in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider 
provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. 
The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in 
Law 71C at any time within the correction period established 
under Law 79C.  (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the 
time period ……. from the start of the next board to the usual 
protest period.”)

7 The committee agreed that the parenthesis in the definition of 
‘Convention' - "(or in the last denomination named)" - applies 
when the main text of the law is not applicable, i.e. in the case of 
‘Pass', ‘Double' or ‘Redouble'.  The only reasonable interpretation 
of ‘the last denomination named' is that it is the denomination in 
which the contract would be played were all the players to pass 
following the call in question.

8 The committee approved the movement of the asterisk in Law 17 
so that it is placed against the words “… from his cancelled call*”.

9. Mr Santanu Ghosh asked that the committee should continue to 
have as an objective that players who are inexperienced and do not 
know the laws shall enjoy the same basic rights as more 
knowledgeable players. It should seek to avoid possibilities for 
knowledgeable players to take quick thinking action that will 
prejudice the rights of inexperienced opponents.

10. Mr Wignall asked that the Committee’s minute be forwarded as a 
report to the WBF Executive Council.  He also undertook to 
consult the President and the Executive Council on the possibility, 
now that world-wide communications are to be improved, that the 
decisions of the Laws Committee be final decisions,

11. Mr Martel mentioned the subject of laws for on-line bridge.  It is 
known that a code of laws is being developed. It is suggested the 
Executive Council may wish to consider the position.  There is a 
suggestion that it may become impossible for the WBF to retain 
control of the laws in the three areas of bridge – duplicate, rubber 
and on-line.


Following a vote of thanks and congratulations to the Chairman at 
the end of his first meeting, proposed by Mr Endicott and Mr 
Auken, the meeting concluded.