[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/07/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> .............
> > > 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..."
>
> OK, I will give you this one:
>
> The experience that partner forgets his system and misbids does not lead to
> any agreement however frequent. (I have not been discussing that.)
>
> But the experience that partner is likely to deliberately misbid in certain
> situations does.
>

Not using any understanding of the meaning of agreement that I know.

I have one player with whom my frequent violations create an explicit
disagreement.  You would need to be out of your mind to believe that
an implicit agreement occurred when you saw the fighting.

> Deliberate misbids are usually protected by Law 40A, but this protection
> does not extend to calls where partner from his partnership experience can
> predict when they will occur and/or on what kind of hands they will be made.
>

That is not what law 40 says and I think you know it Sven.  The caveat
in Law 40A is "provided that such call or play is not based on a
partnership understanding".  An 'understanding' is not 'experience'.
I am willing to conceed that 'experience' through habitual violations
'may' lead to an 'agreement'.  But not to an automatic you have done
this before (once, twice or many times) so you are not allowed to do
it any more.

Its not entirely clear to me what the difference is between
'understanding' and 'agreement'.  Agreement sounds more formal to me.
Both terms seem to imply some mutual recognition of the situation.

Wayne