Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee
			Maastricht, 4th September, 2000.

Present:
	  	T. Kooijman	(Chairman)	
		R. Cohen	(Co Vice-Chairman)
		C. Martel	(Co Vice-Chairman)
		G. Endicott	(Secretary)
		V. Anderson
		J. Auken
		J. Gerard
		D. Morse
		J. Polisner	(WBF General Counsel)
		A. Riccardi
		W. Schoder	(WBF Chief Tournament Director)
		J. Wignall	(Drafting sub-committee Chairman)
	
Guests:
		R. Colker
		D. Stevenson
		L. Trent
		H. De Wael
		N. Wood

Apologies:
		The President Emeritus
		and as for the previous meeting.


1. At the request of an appeals committee chairman the 
Committee considered the circumstances of an appeal which had 
been adjudicated. A player had made a claim by showing his cards 
and informing defenders that on the basis of the known information 
he would make his contract through a double squeeze. His opponent 
had requested him to play out the cards and, in violation of Law 
68D, declarer had done so. In the play that followed, subsequently 
voided by the Director under Law 68D, he failed to fulfil his
contract as claimed. The Declarer now called for the Director who
declared the subsequent play of the cards to be void and determined
that as between expert players it was clear the statement of claim
lacked nothing for clarity, the play of the squeeze being perfectly
evident. The opponents stated that declarer had demonstrated that
he could be careless in executing the squeeze.

When the matter had come to appeal the appeals committee had 
supported the Director in ignoring all play subsequent to the claim 
and in finding that the statement of claim, each player respecting 
the abilities of the other, contained no flaw. The Laws Committee 
agreed that the voided play in such a situation is wholly null and 
shall not be given any attention in determining the validity of the 
claim. When the statement is made an opponent who has any doubt 
about it must summon the Director at once; play must cease entirely.
The questions of irrationality, inferiority or carelessness 
must be judged in relation to the statement accompanying the claim 
and the lines of play that are not excluded by the statement. On the 
occasion in question the appeals committee found that the intended 
play was entirely clear from the statement, but in any case the 
continuation of the play of the cards was void and could not affect 
the issue.

2. The Committee discussed the stages for the next General 
Review of the Laws. The plan so far in prospect was that the Review 
proper should commence in Montreal, August 2002, with the revised 
Code of Laws being published in 2005. It was agreed that the 
revision might be published in 2004, should the efficiency and speed 
of the review allow of it. The Committee felt that an early 
establishment of a drafting sub-committee is desirable. In the 
period from September 2000 to July 2002 the drafting sub-committee
should be giving attention to the underlying philosophies of the
laws, the style of their presentation, and the orderly assembly 
of subjects to be examined. To this end the Secretary should invite 
proposals and observations from appropriate sources and distribute 
them to the sub-committee. Some subjects and aspects that deserve 
attention were mentioned.

3. The Committee acknowledged its responsibility for a 
review also of the Laws of Contract Bridge, both in relation to 
traditional rubber bridge and in relation to the form known as 
‘Chicago’ which is popular in many places. The Secretary reported 
his knowledge that the Portland Club is giving attention to the 
subject and it was agreed he should invite Mr. Davenport of that 
club to liaise directly with Mr. Ralph Cohen who would provide in 
particular material relating to ‘Chicago’. The Committee would look 
forward to hearing from them when they had assembled proposals 
for its consideration.

Detailed attention was given to an interim report on drafting of
laws for on-line (i.e. electronic) bridge. Substantial progress
had been made by a group comprising Messrs. Kooijman, Wignall,
Endicott, and Segraves. Bill Segraves has proved a tower of
strength in co-ordinating the work and in developing text. The
Committee recorded its admiration of, and respect for, his efforts.
A number of ideas and recommendations were noted for the attention
of the working group. The Committee expressed its pleasure at the 
prospect of having final proposals for the text and presentation of 
on-line laws in the not-distant future. It was agreed to hold a 
further meeting of no great duration in order to have a look at one 
or two paragraphs of the interim report not so far addressed.

The meeting then adjourned.