[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 22/07/07, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> It now seems unfortunate that the laws use the term "agreement."
> Perhaps "understanding" should have been used to avoid confusion.
>
> Wayne still is focusing on the dictionary definition of agreement.  He
> wants the director to gather more evidence and find out what the
> *agreements* are.

No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership
understanding" or "partnership agreement".

> In my example, it is clear that there is an
> *understanding* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, and
> that understanding is concealed by the convention card.

Not at all it isn't clear to me.  It is clear to me only that there is
experience that partner opens these 'offshape' hands not that there is
any "partnership understanding" or "partnership agreement".

>  Whether one
> agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed.

>
> That's why I think "understanding" is a better word to use in this
> context than "agreement."  Any emphasis on the common meaning of
> "agreement" is likely to lead to the wrong conclusion in this part of
> bridge law.
>

There is no use of the term "understanding" without the qualifier
"partnership".  This qualifier emphasises a shared "agreement" or
"understanding".

Wayne