[blml] Disclosure (was Ignorantia juris non excusat)

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 7/23/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
>
> > From: "richard willey" <richard.willey at gmail.com>
> >> The regulations need to be based on the set of hands that map on to a
> >> given action, not the ability of players to use the right set of
> >> magic
> >> words to justify their behavior.
> >
> > Basing regulations on the description is indeed senseless.
>
> That sounds obvious, but may not be true.  Numerous authorities have
> opined that the legitimacy of a psych depends on the extent to which
> it "comes as a surprise" (to partner and/or others).  If you accept
> any of those interpretations, then it must perforce depend on how the
> action purportedly being psyched was previoulsy described to the
> relevant others.  When we must deal with expectations as well as with
> actions, the "right set of magic words" can make all the difference.
>
>

I don't see this.  The auction is clear and unambiguous to everyone,
as is the convention card.  If the psych perpetrators answered any
questions, that can be noted and remembered as needed.  Well, maybe
you can further explain the phrase "it must perforce depend on how the
action purportedly being psyched was previously described to the
relevant others."  I may be a little confused by the passive voice.

I don't yet see anything wrong or unworkable with Richard and Steve's
suggestion.  I find their idea appealing.  Maybe an example would
help?

-Jerry Fusselman