[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Eric:]
>
> That's unfair to Wayne, who argues that "may" does not mean "does",
> not that it means "does not".  I doubt that Wayne would have any
> problem finding an infraction (perhaps MI; CPU seems a bit harsh) in
> Jerry's 100-out-of-100 hypothetical case.

First, I agree with Wayne that "may" does not mean "does," and I have
had directors tell me that if I try something, it must immediate go on
our convention cards as our agree.  That point is well taken indeed.

However, Eric, you prediction about Wayne in the next sentence seems
wrong.  He was the first to respond to my example.  This is what he
said:

[Wayne:]
>
> I would require further evidence.  Certainly what a partnership have
> explicitly agreed will be part of that evidence.
<snip>
> If I don't agree that we should open every 3532 or 3523 within range
> 1NT then that cannot be part of my partnerships agreements - explicit
> or implicit.  It might still need to be disclosed.
<snip>
> It
> is moot whether your convention card should explain only your
> agreements or whether it should also give details about your
> partnership experience that is outside your agreements.
>

He is clearly unsure as to whether my example is a case of MI.

(I wish I had called it MI instead of CPU for a more-neutral sound,
but I know of no real logical difference between the two.)

-Jerry Fusselman