WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION


          Minutes of the Meeting of the WBF Laws Committee
           Held on 24 August 1998     Lille, Flandres

Present	Ton Kooijman		Chairman
	Grattan Endicott	Secretary
	Virgil Anderson
	Joan Gerard
	Robert Howes
	William Schoder
	John Wignall

Guests	Chip Martel (for part of the time)
	Barbara Nudelman (for part of the time)
	Richard Colker

1. Constitutional Position
The Committee took note of its constitutional position as set out in
the By-Laws of the WBF, which read:

Laws Committee. The President shall appoint a 
Laws Committee and shall designate the 
Chairman of such Committee. The Committee 
shall consist of not less than seven members 
representing at least three Zones. The function 
and duty of this Committee shall be to consider 
and take account of all matters relating to the 
international laws of bridge. The Committee shall 
make whatever changes in the laws it deems 
appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. 
The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall 
periodically review the laws; and at least once 
each decade shall make a comprehensive study 
and updating of the entire laws structure. The 
Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of 
procedure and shall act as provided by such rules 
or by direction of the Executive.

The Committee made observation that interim interpretations of Law are 
made by Zonal Organisations. Where significant conflicts are identified
the Committee will consider its view at its next Meeting.

2. Law 40E
Mr Wignall raised a question on behalf of the Systems Committee
concerning the exercise of powers under Law 40E. The Committee held
that the Systems Committee (and any sponsoring organisation likewise)
has unrestricted power to identify any method as ‘unusual’ and to
authorise reference to written defences at the table in countering such
methods.

3. Information arising from possession of a penalty card
The Committee considered the question of information arising from 
possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the
penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose
the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may
lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace).
Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so
that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the
suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a
logical alternative.

4. Beneficial effect of a penalty Card
If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the
offending side, the Director may have recourse to Law 72B1

5. Definition of ‘Convention’
Consideration was given to the definition of ‘convention’. The
Committee held the definition in the laws to be adequate. In writing
the definition the intention was not to deem it conventional if a
natural opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general bridge
knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than the one named.

6. Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list.
The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were
mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially
those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this
source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The
Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was
in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for
decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected
and brought to the Committee at each year’s meetings.

The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of
the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and
until it changed them.

7. Agenda of ‘unsure’ matters
It was agreed that an agenda of ‘unsure’ matters should be collated for
each year’s meetings.

8. Actions authorised in the laws
The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action
was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions
if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled
that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define
correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore,
‘extraneous’ and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information
deriving from it is used in the auction or the play.

9. Footnote to Law 25B1
The Committee discussed the footnote to Law 25B1. It was held that
where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature
correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law
27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original
nsufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains
his options to the offender and allows him to select his action,
applying Law 27B.

The meeting then terminated and agreed to reconvene at a later time.