[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/22/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> ***********************************
> "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
>                                - Henry II of England.
> ...................................................
> Q:  Did the King yield up his four knights
>     to the justice of the See of Rome?
> ***********************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat
>
>
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> +=+ +=+ When you quote the case of the Director who asks
> whether you have an agreement that the 1NT opener frequently
> has a five card major - do you and your partner not both agree
> that it is the case he frequently has a five card major?  If not,
> which one of you is not in agreement upon the matter?
>               It seems to me that you are restricting the meaning of
> 'agreement' in a way that it is not restricted in the law book.
>                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>

Perhaps, Grattan, you missed the context I intended.  My example is
now about 24 hours old:

[Jerry:]
> Maybe an example helps.  Suppose my partner opens 1NT on every
> balanced hand with 3532 or 3523 shape and the proper number of points,
> say 100 times out of the last 100 opportunities.  Suppose we have
> never discussed it, and the NT-opening section of our convention card
> leaves "5-card majors common" unchecked on the convention card.  Any
> competent director in possession of these facts should rule CPU, in my
> opinion.  But Wayne's quote seems to imply that he would rule no CPU
> due to the lack of an explicit verbal or written agreement.

In my example, both partners know that this 1NT opener frequently has
a 5-card major.  I want no issue of bad memories here, so you can
assume that both players have perfect memory of all partnership hands
and bids in the past.  But, in my example, I (hypothetically) just
doesn't like it that my partner often has a 5-card major when he opens
1NT.  I never agreed to it, but if pressed, I must admit that it
happens with near perfect regularity.  Furthermore, as we have still
not talked about it yet, I have no reason to believe that my partner
is now bidding with a different style.  One way to pose the question
is this:  Should I disclose what I wants my partner to do, or what my
partner actually does?  Another way to pose the question is this:
Since I never actually technically agreed to open 1NT with 5-card
majors, and since I do not like the practice, can I state that we have
agreed to never open 1NT with 5-card majors?

Have I clarified my example for you?

-Jerry Fusselman