Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee
            held in Bermuda on 12th January 2000.

Present:
		Ton Kooijman		(Chair)
		The President Emeritus
		Ralph Cohen		(co Vice-Chairman)
		Grattan Endicott	(Secretary)
		Virgil Anderson
		Cecil Cook
		Joan Gerard
		Dan Morse
		William Schoder
		John Wignall

By invitation:
	 	Richard Colker
		Jeffrey Polisner
		Linda Trent
		Nadine Wood

Apologies received from Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose.


1 The meeting continued with items remaining from the meeting the 
previous day. Law 64 was addressed. It was confirmed that in Law 
64A2 the word ‘subsequently’ means subsequent to the revoke.

2 The question of the ‘two trick penalty in Law 64’, see Law 43B2(c), 
was revisited. Mr. Ghose’s remarks were noted. It was agreed that the 
wording of the minute in Ocho Rios requires amendment. Accordingly 
the committee confirmed its position that the legal card which is 
substituted for the first card determines the ownership of the revoke 
trick. This card is played subsequently to the revoke. Law 64 is then
to be applied, so that there may be 2 trick penalty but not
necessarily so. 

3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a 
defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender	 
disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has
not been established. The Director must allow correction of the
revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible,
adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker.

4 There was further discussion concerning Law 63 and its relationship 
with Law 69. It was noted that Law 63 indicates how acquiescence 
may occur and Law 69 defines the time limits for it.

5 The committee read copies of internet correspondence concerning a 
situation in which, acting upon misinformation which in the
Director’s opinion inhibits them from a presumed 3NT contract, a side
arrives in a high level contract, which may appear to be a good
contract but as the cards lie cannot be made. It was agreed that a
score adjustment is appropriate if the side is damaged, as in the
specific example owing to the misinformation, but if the side is
not damaged the laws do not allow of score adjustment. The WBF
Code of Practice defines ‘damage’. A player claiming to be damaged
must convince the Director this is the case. The quality of the
contract is not a consideration.

6 Being aware that declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy 
to run a suit and then leave him to do this without giving, as is 
procedurally correct, a separate instruction for each card.  A
question can arise as to when the second, or a later, card is played
from dummy, since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card
once it is played.  The Committee ruled that the card is deemed to
be played when Declarer’s RHO follows to the trick. However, the
committee deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular
manner.

7 A question put by M. Lormant Philippe concerned the relationship
of Law 51 to Law 50.  The committee observed that Law 50 makes the 
general statement of the matter; Law 51 deals with the position
when there is more than one penalty card but does so by reference
back to Law 50.

8 At the request of the committee the Secretary undertook to retain
a note that Law 79B requires attention when a major review of the
laws is undertaken.

9 The committee revisited the decision taken in Lille concerning 
‘average minus’ in Law 12C1. The committee decided to abide by its 
decision in Lille.

10 Mr. Wignall said that the Systems Committee would welcome advice 
on the manner in which ‘encrypted’ signals could best be disallowed. 
Members of the committee undertook to provide information for 
consideration. The subject would be revisited at the next meeting of 
the committee.

11 Mr Wignall drew attention to situations when, behind screens, an 
opening bid is followed by a ‘big jump in a suit’ and upon enquiry
as to its meaning the side which has made the skip bid responds that
they ‘have no agreement’.

This subject also was deferred for later examination together with 
generally related issues.

  The meeting then concluded. It was agreed that a further meeting
 is needed.