[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 22/07/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> > Sent: 22. juli 2007 11:54
> > To: Sven Pran
> > Cc: blml
> > Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat
> >
> > On 22/07/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> > > .................
> > > > No I just want the TD to discover if there is a "partnership
> > > > understanding" or "partnership agreement".
> > >
> > > Exactly. And I have told you how I rule that they have a partnership
> > > understanding, i.e. agreement from experience, when I understand that a
> > > player use a particular style or method to the extent that his partner
> > must
> > > probably be aware of it and possibly cater for it.
> > >
> > > In some cases it takes only one single occurrence to establish that such
> > > understanding exists, in other cases it may take several corresponding
> > > occurrences. How many is a matter of judgement by the Director. (This
> > > judgement can of course, like most rulings, be appealed.)
> > >
> >
> > ... and sometimes repeated and potentially unlimited occurrences do
> > not create a partnership agreement.
> >
> > Note L75B uses the language "partnership agreement".
>
> And the Laws do not distinguish between Partnership Agreements, Partnership
> experience or partnership understandings. The latter two are considered
> "implied" partnership agreements.

That is simply not true unless the writers of the laws had a
particularly bad grasp of the english language.

'...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience..."

If it was as you say then the writer would not have used what you
apparently consider a tautological expression.  It makes a whole lot
more sense to assume that the writer of the laws had in mind two
different concepts when he drafted the above law.

It is barely possible to believe that "partnership understanding" and
"partnership agreement" refer to the same concept but I can't think of
a good reason for the laws to use two different words for the same
technical concept.

I believe "partnership experience" "may" lead to a "partnership
agreement.  This seems to me to be consistent with the language in the
laws.  I cannot see how you can believe these things are one and the
same.

>
> Let us stop splitting hairs, shall we?

Let us stop assuming that the writers did not mean what they wrote.

>
> When I direct I shall never let a player get away with technicalities to
> hide information on partnership agreements from opponents, nor shall I let
> him get away with alleged psyches that are not genuine psyches (which is
> what this thread is really about).
>

But you will let a director call "experience" an "agreement" etc.  The
director is bound by the laws and announced regulations.  You have not
right to distort the meaning of the words written in the laws.

Wayne