Schedule 1 from the Minutes of 20 January 2000

          Copy of letter to J Damiani from G Endicott

M. J Damiani
President
World Bridge Federation 

12 January 2000 

Mr President 

  I have been requested by the Laws Committee to convey to 
you the desire of Mr William Schoder that when, in your pleasure, 
he is next listed in the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee 
the entry be shown in the following manner: 

  WBF Chief Tournament Director (Mr. William Schoder) 

  Mr. Schoder's Point is that he appears at Laws Committee meetings
in his role of Chief Director, and not as a member of Zone 2.  It
is his concept that the Chief Director should stand apart from 
Zonal Connotations, being committed to impartiality in his dealings 
with all. 

  Accordingly I submit to you this prayer in the hope that you 
will receive it with favour. 

                    Yours respectfully,
                    Grattan Endicott OBE

------------------------------------------------------------------

         Schedule 2 from the Minutes of 11 January 2000

            Memorandum on question raised in meeting
          of 11th January 2000, concerning discrepancy
           between ACBL statute and By-law of the WBF.

  Messrs.  Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and Wignall 
held an informal discussion on this and related subjects on 15th 
January 2000. One main conclusion of the group was that no 
approach to the Executive Council on the subject is needed at this 
time. 

  There is a potential problem but the group believes it can be 
resolved by enhanced communications between the bodies 
concerned, and generally with those involved in the promulgation of 
the laws.  Ways in which this could be done were explored.  It was 
envisaged that efforts might be directed towards a major revision of 
the laws in, say, 2005; a drafting committee based upon the ACBL 
drafting committee, with expansion to include some additional 
international input, could meet in Montreal in 2002.  In the 
meantime preparatory consultation should continue. 

  It is recognized that there are three types of problem on 
which to collaborate: 

   * any differences between the ACBL law book and the WBF 
law book; 
   * differences of law interpretation by various authorities; 
   * Laws which call for revision. 

  It was agreed that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Endicott should work 
together on the preparation of a WBF Commentary on the Laws of 
Duplicate Bridge, with the assistance of Mr. Richard Grenside to 
ensure that views from outside Zones 1 and 2 are taken into account. 

  It was noted that worldwide distribution of the Code of 
Practice is intended.  The question of laws for electronic bridge was 
raised. Mr. Endicott noted steps already taken and Mr.  Cohen 
reported action taken by the ACBL.  It was considered that 
knowledge should be shared and the matter progressed.  

------------------------------------------------------------------

         Schedule 3 from the Minutes of 11 January 2000

                    Note concerning Law 25B

  Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th 
January 2000, the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes 
of call are allowed in the case of a misjudgement when the first call 
was made.  The player himself decides that he has misbid.  A 
player is not entitled to change because of his inference as to the 
probable next call by LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to 
an irregularity occurring after his first call. 

Examples: 

1. North opens 1H, East passes, South bids 4H.  West comments 
"I am certainly not passing this".  South is not allowed to 
substitute 2H. 

2. South opens 2D (Multi).  North passes out of turn.  The pass not 
being accepted, it is West's turn to call; South is not allowed to 
anticipate North's forced pass by changing his call and naming 
his suit. 

3. North opens 1H and East passes; South bids 2H and then 
discovers he only has twelve cards.  The card being found, 
South is allowed to change his call if he wishes under Law 25B.