Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee
                held in Bermuda on 20th January 2000



Present:
   		Ton Kooijman		(Chair)
		The President Emeritus
		Ralph Cohen		co Vice-Chairman
		Chip Martel		co Vice-Chairman
		Grattan Endicott	Secretary
		Virgil Anderson
		Cecil Cook
		Joan Gerard
		Dan Morse
		Rebecca Rogers
		William Schoder
		John Wignall
		Jeffrey Polisner	General Counsel

By invitation:
		Richard Colker
		David Silber
		Linda Trent
		Nadine Wood

Apologies again recorded from Carlos Cabanne and Santanu Ghose

1 Mr. Schoder asked that the Committee should attend to its own 
remit and not digress into areas that are the prerogative of other 
entities.

2 Considering the minutes of the meeting of January 12th, paragraph 
6, Mr. Martel wished to clarify that he was referring to the
motivation for writing the law; but the law as now written does not
allow of the distinction between reasons for changing the call that
the Committee is desirous of making. A question was asked as to how
many rulings based on Law 25B had been given in the current
tournament. The Chief Director replied that there had been at least
six. The Chairman reminded the committee that it had been agreed to
put consideration of the subject back to the major review of the
laws, envisaged to occur in the period 2002-2005. The Secretary
recorded his reservation that he did not consider it in the best
interests of bridge that the committee, having an overwhelming
balance of opinion that Law 25B is seriously flawed and needs to be
deleted or radically altered, should do nothing about it until the
year 2005.

3 In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that 
information received from the action of any other player after a
call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the
call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that
current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.)

4 The Secretary undertook to seek publication of a disclaimer on the 
WBF web to the effect that no opinion, unless the recorded corporate 
decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority 
of a committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to 
their respective NCBOs. It was agreed that when subjects arise the 
committee could have its own internal exchange of opinions via the 
internet.

5 The committee perused a report by Mr. Kooijman relating to 
Tournament Directors. The committee liked the approach, but 
considered it a matter for the Chief Tournament Director to implement 
and not a subject for the committee.

6 Referring to a minute of the 12th January meeting the committee 
noted that the Systems Committee is proposing an interim regulation 
of ‘encrypted’ signals. Although the subject may be looked at in any 
major revision of the laws, general opinion was that the question is 
one for regulation rather than law. Law 40D empowers a regulating 
authority to make such a regulation. If a good definition of this
type of signal were available it could be offered to regulating
authorities for possible use worldwide.

7 The committee considered situations where an obscure call is made 
and the partner informs opponent that his side has no agreement 
concerning it. It was noted that neither the WBF in its code of
practice, nor the ACBL, recognizes ‘convention disruption’ as an
infraction in itself. The Chief Director referred to the requirement
for the responder to give full information, including agreements
relating to relevant alternative calls. The committee observed that
the Director in forming an opinion as to the existence of a
partnership understanding should take into account subsequent action
in the auction. In relation to Laws 75C and 75D the Director is
required to determine what agreements the partnership has.

8 Mr. Martel would like the committee to look at possibilities of 
removing the partner from the table and inviting the player who made 
the call to explain his intention.

9 The Secretary was invited to refer a statement by Mr. Kooijman on 
the position in paragraph 7 above to the Code of Practice Committee 
for consideration.

10 There was discussion on laws for electronic bridge. It transpired 
that Mr. Colker is contracted to OK Bridge to provide laws for them, 
and has permission to use the ACBL lawbook as the basis. It was 
strongly desired that there should be co-operation between all 
interested in the subject, and the view was expressed that as a 
worldwide activity its rules should have the participation and
approval of the WBF. Exchanges of material were felt to be
appropriate, and Mr. Wignall urged early progress in the matter.

11 It was agreed to look in any major review of the laws at a
possibility of merging the procedures under Laws 26A and 26B. In the
interim it is agreed that Law 26A only applies where a withdrawn
call relates only to one or more specified suits. A withdrawn call
showing a mixture of specified and unspecified suits is to be dealt
with under 25B.

12 The committee noted the final words of ‘The Scope of the Laws’.
It noted that score adjustment is for the purpose of redressing
damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage from
the offending side, not for punishment of offenders.

13  Members of the committee expressed their satisfaction with what 
the committee had done in Bermuda. The Chairman drew the meeting 
to a close.