ACBL Laws Commission Minutes
HOUSTON, TX 9 MARCH, 2002
Ralph Cohen, Chip Martel, Co-Chairmen
Karen Allison, Dan Morse, Jeff Polisner, Jon Brissman
Bob Friend, John Solodar, Bobby Wolff
Gary Blaiss, Olin Hubert, Richard Colker, Roger Pewit
Alan LeBendig, Cecil Cook, Matt Smith, Mike Flader
Linda Trent, Bob Friend, Brad Holtsberry, John Wignall
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m.
The minutes of the meeting in Las Vegas were approved.
Appeals case 24 (attached) was discussed:
Once the director and committee judged that the 3C call was an insufficient bid and the 3C and 4C call were incontrovertibly not conventional, the change to 4C without penalty was correctly allowed.
The director and committee should have then applied law 27 B 1 (b) which discusses the insufficient bid conveying "such information" as to damage the non-offending side rather than unauthorized information as per law 16. However, it was agreed that final decision to adjust the contract to 5C was legal under 27 B 1 (b) even though the standards and guidelines for the two laws are different. As an aside, the LC did not seem to concur in the judgment necessary to change the contract.
The LC agreed that once the contract was changed, the committee is to determine the adjustment based upon the different circumstances. The committee is not bound by plays (actions) made at the contract that was actually played. A committee, in these cases where mechanical irregularities have been deemed to occur, may elect to consider them or not.
There was an attempt to reach a consensus on whether mechanical irregularities
would always be considered as part of the offender's adjustment but no consensus
John Wignall, chairman of the WBF Laws drafting committee (DC), spoke to the Commission. His topic was in relation to drafting a new version of the Laws. He made the following points:
There was discussion concerning the various suggestions (attached) that had been tendered to the LC. Some points that were discussed follow:
a. Discussion on whether the irregularity referred to in law 12 (C2) refers to the illegal choice taken as per law 16 or that the UI (usually an unmistakable break in tempo) and the illegal choice combined should be considered the irregularity. No consensus was reached but the DC is asked to clarify.
b. Revisions to law 12 (C, especially) were discussed. The LC agrees that this law should be4 re-written.
c. Revisions to the laws on claims were discussed. It was agreed that different wording, which would permit the hand to be played out under specified circumstances, is needed.
d. It was suggested that all if not most laws concerning administration after the fact (e.g., appeals) should be re-written to give the sponsoring organization or the ZO increased options. Specifics should be matters of Conditions of Contest rather than law.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 P.M.