Minutes of the Meeting of
        the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee
                Paris, 28th October 2001.


Present:	T. Kooijman,	Chairman
		R. Cohen,       Vice-Chairman
		G. Endicott,	Secretary
		J. Gerard
		J. Polisner
		A. Riccardi
W. Schoder

		D. Morse attended briefly.

Guests:		R. Colker
		H. De Wael
		A. Wildawsky

Apologies for absence:
		R. Martel, Vice-Chairman
		C. Cabanne
		C. Dadoun
		S. Ghose

1 The Chairman welcomed all present to the first meeting 
in Paris,2001, of the committee.

2 As a matter arising from the minutes of 30th August 
2000, item 5, the Chief Tournament Director, Mr. Schoder, 
enquired as to the intention of the committee that 
irrationality is to be judged by the class of player involved. 
The committee confirmed this is so since the ratification of 
those minutes. It was added that the assessment of what is 
'irrational' in this respect is a matter for Directors and 
Appeals Committees.

3 The committee deferred to its next meeting 
consideration of a proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Wolff.

4 Consideration was given to Law 70 -Contested Claims. 
The Chairman drew attention to the matter of a claim in 
Maastricht (see minutes of September 4th, 2000. Item 1). 
He, like the Chairman of that appeals committee, had been 
uncomfortable with the outcome, even if the appeals 
committee had applied its bridge judgement correctly to the 
laws as they are. Mr. Polisner considered that the only true 
reason for the annulment of any play subsequent to a claim 
is that declarer must not be allowed to recognize and 
remedy a flaw in his statement. Mr. Cohen saw a possibility 
that one could change the law to allow an option of calling 
the Director or playing out the hand. The subject was 
referred to the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee.

5 The committee received the final report of the Working 
Party on the Drafting of the World Bridge Federation Code 
of Laws for Bridge played Electronically ('Online Bridge'). 
The Chairman recited the procedure that the Working 
Group had adopted. It was noted that further suggestions 
had reached the Secretary after the deadline for 
submissions. It was agreed that for the time being these 
laws should be reviewed annually and that the suggestions 
in question should be examined in the coming year. The 
Laws as presented to the committee were approved for 
submission to the WBF Executive Council with an invitation 
that it agree to ratify the Code and to authorize its 
promulgation worldwide. The Laws Committee also 
believed that the   Executive Council would wish to 
determine the status of these laws. When distributing the 
new Code the Laws Committee  proposes to invite Game 
Providers to send their further comments after obtaining  
experience in their operation. 

Mr. Riccardi recorded a suggestion that many of the 
problems of the online game could be resolved if the 
software did not disclose a player's call or play to his 
partner until the LHO has made his call or play.

6 There was a discussion concerning the situation under 
Law 15C when the correct pair is seated and one of them 
makes a call for which no bridge reason can be perceived. 
It was agreed that such action is not acceptable and a 
Director who forms the opinion that there is no 
demonstrable bridge reason for a call by the incoming pair 
is authorized to treat this as a violation of Law 74A2.

[Secretary's note: the committee was aware of debate 
concerning a pair who might open 7NT when substituted at 
the table for an incorrect pair, with the implication that the 
purpose was to avoid playing the board.]

The Secretary stated his view that the law can act unfairly 
to the side that remains seated when it requires them to 
repeat the same calls against different opponents. The 
committee referred this question to the Laws Drafting 
Subcommittee.

7 It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from 
dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of 
declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1. 

[Secretary's note: the above is amended wording as 
agreed in the meeting of 30th October; it makes it clear that 
a dummy who has lost his rights is not barred from making 
such an enquiry in relation to declarer's play from dummy.] 

8 Consideration was given to the experience of the 
operation of screen procedures. The Chairman offered a 
thought that when North pushes the tray through the 
screen bearing an irregular call by East this should 
constitute acceptance of East's call provided that it is not 
inadmissible. 

The Chief Tournament Director was invited to submit a 
draft that would meet his objections to some present 
regulations and which could be either incorporated in the 
laws or recommended to regulating authorities.

9 A paper on psychic action prepared by the Secretary 
was referred to the Systems Committee.

10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a 
defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the 
complement of the remaining tricks, if the  defender's 
partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 
68B  no concession has occurred and by the same token 
neither has any claim been made. After the Director has 
been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.

11 The committee discussed the status of spectators and 
the requirements of the laws in relation to them. The 
Chairman felt that a spectator was only a spectator when 
observing the play and that he ceased to be a spectator 
when he was no longer doing so. Other members of the 
committee were of the opinion that a spectator had 
responsibilities that continued after he was no longer 
observing the play. (The Secretary had drawn attention to 
the regulation in force at the current Championships.) It 
was suggested    "spectators should not count" - i.e. that 
they should not be involved  actively in a tournament. Mr. 
Riccardi offered a suggestion that where a spectator draws 
attention to an irregularity there should be an adjustment 
for one side only so that a score may be reduced but no 
trick awarded to a side in a manner to increase its score. 
The subject was remitted for  the consideration of the Laws 
Review Subcommittee.



The committee then adjourned. It was agreed to meet 
again in the afternoon of Tuesday, 30th October 2001.


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