Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee
      held on 30th October 2001 in Paris, France.


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

		Robert S. Wolff	Past President

Guests:		R. Colker
		N. Wood

1 The Secretary presented the minutes of the previous 
meeting. After slight amendment these were agreed.

Arising:
(a) The committee wished to remove from Section 6 any 
requirement to judge the intention of the player. It was 
agreed that the Director should apply Law 74A2 if he is of 
the opinion that there is no satisfactory bridge reason for a 
call made by an incoming player.
(b) The Secretary drew attention to the need, if it were the 
intention of the committee to bar a dummy who has lost his 
rights from making enquiry of partner under Law 42B1 
concerning a play from dummy, to add a footnote to Law 
43B2(b) to say "*or dummy's hand". The committee 
decided this was not its intention; a dummy who has lost 
his rights should still be allowed to make such an enquiry 
concerning a play from dummy's hand.

2 The committee returned to the matter deferred from the 
previous meeting concerning Mr. Wolff's proposed 
regulation. Mr. Wolff explained his reasons for wishing to 
make a misbid culpable at high levels of play. Expert 
players should know their systems and methods and it is 
not acceptable in his opinion that the chances are now that 
a misbid will be as likely to damage opponents as they are 
to damage the player's own side, especially with some of 
the weak conventional bids that are fashionable. A 
tournament should not be decided upon the chances that 
the Director or appeals committee will judge 'misbid' rather 
than 'misexplanation'.

The committee invited Mr. Schoder to consider whether he 
could introduce some measure of support for Mr. Wolff's 
objectives into his draft revised regulations for screens. 
The question was also remitted to the WBF Laws Revision 
Subcommittee.

3 The committee discussed Law 70E. It was agreed that 
it is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be 
played and to take account of what he would see. 

4 The committee discussed the cross-references in the 
laws to Law 26, and in particular those in Laws 30, 31, and 
32. The committee agreed that whilst the cross-references 
to Law 26 are not necessarily exhaustive in the laws the 
committee had not found a case where it would apply to a 
ruling under Law 30, 31 or 32, and the cross-reference is 
absent. 

5 The committee agreed that references to irregularities 
in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An 
action by a Director may be an error but this does not 
constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws.

6 The committee agreed that when Law 82C is applied 
the Director's error may still allow of a score being obtained 
normally; a rectification may allow of normal play. In these 
circumstances should it then be necessary to adjust the 
score the Director awards an adjusted score (either 
assigned or artificial as appropriate). The Laws Review 
Subcommittee was asked to seek a clearer statement of 
the law in this area.

7 The committee agreed with a statement concerning 
Law 31A published by the Secretary on the internet.

8 The committee noted extensive correspondence 
concerning unauthorized information derived from a 
question asked following an alert. The committee 
considered that the matter has had an exhaustive airing. 
Such unauthorized information can arise. The Laws 
Review Subcommittee will have another look at the 
subject.

9 The committee studied a problem put by Jan Romanski 
in correspondence on the internet. It found a difficulty 
between the statements in Law 69 and those in Law 63. 
This problem should be addressed by the Laws Revision 
Subcommittee. It was decided that Law 63A3 is to apply in 
the quoted circumstances (LHO failed to follow suit in 
Spades at trick 9, declarer said 'OK Queen of Spades to 
you', hands were returned to the board and the board was 
scored; the revoke was discovered before the signal for the 
following round was given.) A member of the offending side 
has acquiesced "in any other fashion".

The committee adjourned. A further meeting was arranged 
for 9.15 a.m. on Thursday, November 1st.