Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Paris, France, on 1st November 2001. Present: T. Kooijman Chairman R. Cohen Jt. Vice Chairman G. Endicott Secretary J. Gerard D. Morse J. Polisner A. Riccardi W. Schoder J. Wignall Robert S. Wolff Past President Guests R. Colker L. Trent N. Wood 1. The Secretary presented the minutes of the meeting of October 30th, 2001. After amendment of Section 6 these were agreed. 2. The Chairman noted that in Law 12C2 it is provided that assigned adjusted scores may be expressed in either matchpoints or total points. The committee agreed this is so and added that scores assigned under Law 12C2 in matchpoints must be capable of justification according to the requirements of that law. 3. The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is over-ruffed by defender who also has a card of the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. 5. A question that had been raised by Dietlinde Kellner concerning the Systems Policy. This was referred to the Systems Committee. 6. It was agreed that an appeals committee has the power in Law 81C9 to refer a matter 'to the appropriate committee'. The committee urges strongly that where an appeals committee has a difficulty with the law as given to it by the Director, its first step should always be to invite the Director to reconsider his interpretation of the law as is provided in Law 93B3. 7. The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. Attention was drawn to situations where these powers are used to ban the use of certain conventions, as by the WBF in category 3 events, or to ban the psyching of opening artificial bids in specified circumstances, as by the American Contract Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and by the European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee deprecated reported occurrences of applying penalties when players err in their use of Ghestem except in the circumstances envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice. 8. The committee noted that Mr. Ed Reppert had drawn attention to the use of 'must' in Law 9B1(a), implying a requirement to penalize. The committee referred this probably unintended use of 'must' to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee. 9. The Secretary presented for the information of the committee copy of a letter dated 4th October 1985. It was agreed that the Laws Drafting Sub-committee should examine the questions that it raised. 10. Under 'Any Other Business' Mr. Riccardi expressed a wish to have the committee examine a matter at a convenient time. The Secretary undertook to include it in the agenda of the committee's next meeting. The Chairman then thanked the members of the committee for their constructive work at its three meetings in Paris, 2001, and closed the last of its meetings to be held at the current Championships.