[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/07, Brian <brian at meadows.pair.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:33:43 -0500
> > "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Law 75B is clear and supercedes any dictionary
> > > definition of agreement.
> > >
> >
> > Does it supersede the dictionary definitions of "may" and "will"?
> >
> >
> > Brian.
> >
>
> No.
>
> Perhaps you missed my point.  Wayne said, "One player regularly doing
> something does not a partnership agreement make.  You seem to have a
> misunderstanding of the meaning of agreement."  I read that as
> emphasizing the dictionary definition of agreement over the bridge
> laws meaning implied by Law 75B.
>
> I was also hoping to get some confirmation that it is the director who
> decides what the partnership agreements are for purposes of
> administering the bridge laws.
>
> Maybe an example helps.  Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every
> balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points,
> say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities.  Suppose we have
> never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card
> leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card.  Any
> competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my
> opinion.  But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU
> due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement.
>

That is not my position at all.

I would require further evidence.  Certainly what a partnership have
explicitly agreed will be part of that evidence.  As will, in
contrast, matters that the partnership have explicitly disagreed on.

If I don't agree that we should open every 3532 or 3523 within range
1NT then that cannot be part of my partnerships agreements - explicit
or implicit.  It might still need to be disclosed.  Partnership
experience is required to be disclosed in response to a question L75C.
 Therefore a proper response to a question might be "15-17 denies a
five-card major but partner tends to ignore that and open 1NT whenever
he is within range with 3532 or 3523".  Part of this explanation is
about our agreement and part is about our partnership experience.  It
is moot whether your convention card should explain only your
agreements or whether it should also give details about your
partnership experience that is outside your agreements.

Disclosure of psyching tendancies is an example of disclosing your
partnership experience that is outside your agreements.

Law 75B recognizes that sometimes an implicit agreement can develop
based on partnership experience ("habitual violations" of "an
announced partnership agreement").  It does not say that such an
agreement must develop from those "habitual violations".  Therefore
there needs to be some other standard by which we can determine if the
violations have developed into an "agreement" or not.

Wayne