[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/22/07, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
> Jerry Fusselman wrote:
<snip>
> >  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.  Whether one
> > agrees with partner's style or not, it must be disclosed.
> >
>
> That one we all agree upon.
>

Alas, no, for Wayne disagrees with both sentences.

For the first sentence, Wayne has been quite clear that he thinks more
questions must be asked and that 100 out of the last 100 times (in my
specific example) is not sufficient to define a partnership
understanding.  He has not yet said what other questions he would ask
or what answers might imply no CPU.  I think the 100-out-of-100 fact
in my example is way more than enough to safely rule CPU or MI.  (Even
50 out of 100 would have been enough for me.)

For the second sentence,  Wayne's quote below seems to show that he
feels that fighting about what bids *should* mean implies that what
they actually show need not be disclosed:

[Wayne:]
>
> 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.

Wayne and I have several areas of agreement, but our opposite position
on these two sentences perhaps reveal our two most fundamental
disagreements related to Law 75B.

-Jerry Fusselman