[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/07/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [Jerrt Fussekman]
> >> 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.
> >
> [Wayne Burrows]
> > There is no use of the term "understanding" without the qualifier
> > "partnership".  This qualifier emphasises a shared "agreement" or
> > "understanding".
>
> [nige1]
> Jerry and Wayne have reached an instructive impasse.
>
> Years ago, in Edinburgh, I played in a group for many years. Nobody
> had a convention card and we never discussed or formally agreed
> anything but we got to know most of the special and artificial
> meanings that our partners assigned to bids.
>
> Another example. Recently, my partner arrived late to play in an
> on-line match. We've never before played together. We had no time to
> discuss or agree anything. During the evening, we used a large range
> of sophisticated methods. We were playing against a Polish team, so we
> had to alert and explain most auctions. We implicitly relied on the
> knowledge that we belong to the same local group, who have similar
> views on Acol and read the same books and magazines.
>
> I would be interested in Wayne's view on such cases. I presume that
> Wayne would say we had no agreements, just shared experience.
>

No it appears to me you had some implicit agreements.

Although there is a serious problem with this concept of implicit
agreement - What happens when your "implicit agreement" turns into an
"implicit disagreement"?  In other words when you believe that an
agreement exists even though you have never discussed the situation
but it turns out that there is in fact no agreement.

> Jerry says that even without discussion or formal agreement, a pair
> may still have an *implicit agreement.

I agree with that.

I don't agree that one, two, three or many instances of a violation
can create an agreement in and of themselves.  For there to be an
agreement there must be some meeting of the minds and at that meeting
they must agree.

>
> Wayne's view may fit better with a dictionary definition but the law
> seems to make no sense unless you adopt Jerry's interpretation.
>

I don't see this.

Wayne