[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/22/07, Wayne Burrows <wjburrows at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
<snip>
>
> 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.
>

Oh, these paragraphs are so clear!  We might be getting somewhere now.
 I'll start with your second paragraph.

I will try to clarify the difference between `understanding' and
`agreement' that I had in mind.  I am referring to the common meanings
of the word.  I may understand that my partner often opens 1NT with a
five-card major even though I don't agree with that style.  We have an
understanding that partner's 1NT opening hand frequently contains a
5-card major.  That we have never agreed to this style and have never
discussed it is irrelevant.

When the director comes to the table and asks us whether we have an
*agreement* that the 1NT opener frequently has a 5-card major, the
director has made a big (but common) mistake.  The mistake is to use
the word "agreement," which obviously can be misunderstood by the
average bridge player.  What he should ask, instead, is whether there
is an *understanding* by me, based on agreement or experience, that my
partner frequently has a 5-card major when he opens 1NT.  To say no to
this question would be a lie (yes, I am assuming that I have been
paying attention to my partner's past 1NT openings, Ed).  In this
sense, our agreements are irrelevant and my understanding of what kind
of hands my partner is likely to have is what matters.  His likely
hands must be disclosed---in my explanation, I cannot substitute what
I wish he was likely to have.

Do you see a difference between the common meanings of `understanding'
and `agreement' now?

Now to your earlier paragraph:
>
> 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.

Once more, Wayne, you are emphasizing the common meaning of agreement.
 What I have been trying to say is that the common meaning of
agreement is not what matters.  It is totally irrelevant how much you
despise your partner's opening 1NT with a 5-card major.  You can yell
and scream at him; you can vow to never agree to such a disgusting
treatment; but you must disclose it.

So, I think it safe to say, that if you have a long-standing,
never-ending, and unlikely-to-ever-change "explicit
disagreement"---your term---then that is exactly what you must
disclose, no matter how much you hate your partner's bidding in these
cases.  Your emphasis in this paragraph on your hatred of it shows
that you don't know what matters.  What matters is your understanding
of what his bid shows, and that is what must be disclosed.   What
doesn't matter is how much you hate it or that you have never agreed to it.

-Jerry Fusselman