[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/21/07, Wayne Burrows <wjburrows at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Might?  Need more evidence?  What more evidence do you need?  What
evidence would sway you that there is no CPU?