[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/07/07, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

I might agree with some of that - I haven't completely digested it I
have to admit - except that I think the qualifier 'partnership'
restricts the meaning of understanding.

This is the dictionary definition that I think of when I see
'understanding' in this context "a mutual agreement, esp. of a
private, unannounced, or tacit kind" which has more similarities to
'agreement' than 'experience'.  In fact it is almost synonymous with
'agreement'.

It is entirely consistent for me to have an 'understanding' with a
partner while reserving my right to violate that 'understanding'
whenever I feel like it.  Equally there is nothing about a Herman's 1H
that suggests it is a 'partnership understanding' it is a 'Herman
idiosyncracy'.  If he always makes this bid or even it is only made
90% of the time or whatever he can do so without any 'understanding'
from his partner.

>
> 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.
>

The issue is not about disclosure.  I have no problem disclosing what
I know from partnership experience.  I have a problem when the
director tells me I have an agreement when I do not.

Actually there may be an issue with disclosure.  More on that later perhaps.

Wayne