[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Jerry:]
> > Have I clarified my example for you?
> >

[Grattan:]
> +=+ Except that I believe you agree that in fact he does it
> (and so does he).  On that point you are in  agreement and
> it is an item of information that should be available to opponents.
>                                            ~ G ~   +=+

Good.

But I am concerned that when a director asks a player about the
"partnership agreements" on a call, the player may think that the
question refers narrowly to what both have agreed to do and not to
what his partner tends to do.  I am not sure that very many bridge
players would assume "agreement" covers what we agree that one player
often does on his own.  Do you think the word "understanding" may be
clearer to the average bridge player?  Do you think "understanding"
would be more likely to elicit accurate responses in this kind of
situation than "agreement?"

The question comes up because directors tend to use words that appear
in the law book.

-Jerry Fusselman