[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 25/07/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> ..............
> > > What's the problem?
> >
> > Defining the boundary of the subset.  We cannot assume that it is
> > identical to the boundary of the full set (i.e. that "there is not a
> > difference between the two").
>
> IMO "Understanding" is the "full set", must be available to opponents
> (declared) and may be regulated by SO. "Understanding" includes explicit
> agreements, implied agreements (from experience) as well as knowledge (from
> whatever source) of partner's habits as long as such knowledge can have
> impact on interpreting partner's calls.
>
> Wherever the laws use any other term like "agreement" or "experience" I take
> that to be synonymous with "understanding" unless it is quite clear from the
> context that a more restricted meaning is intended.
>
> I am not aware of any place in the laws where such restricted meaning seems
> relevant except that Law 75C introduces the terms "general experience" and
> "general knowledge" which clearly means experience and knowledge that apply
> regardless of partnership (rather than because of the partnership).
>
> As for the legality (under Law 40A) of psychic calls I still consider such
> legality to be void whenever partner from his "understanding" (as described
> above) has reason to positively be aware of the call being a "psyche".
>
> Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as
> surprised as opponents.
>

All I can say is that this interpretation is completely not obvious
from the words written in the laws.

I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement' and
'experience' from anything written in the laws.

It is more like the conclusion of someone who premeditated that they
did not want players to psyche so found a way to interpret what is
written to make a psyche as difficult as possible.

A psyche is legal so long as it is 'not based on a partnership
understanding' this is nothing like the distortion above "from his
"understanding" (as described above) has reason to positively be aware
of the call being a "psyche" " or the short form "unless partner
becomes at least as surprised as opponents."

I can easily be 'aware' or a psyche for reasons other than having a
'partnership understanding'.  I am never or at least very seldom
'surprised' when my partner 'psyches' and I don't have any regular
partner who I would consider psyches a lot.

You say 'his "understanding" ' when the law says "partnership
understanding".  I can only come to the conclusion that your view is
distorted from what is written in the law book.

When the bidding goes:

P P ?

1C X ?

3D X ?

3H P ?

1C* ?  *Precision

etc etc

I know that my partner might psyche.  This knowledge is not based on a
'partnership understanding' it is based on a general knowledge.
General knowledge that when you play a game a decent strategy is to
make it as hard as possible for your opponents.  General knowledge
rather than 'partnership understanding' because I would have the same
or a very similar expectation whether playing with my regular partner
or a pick-up partner - I am allowed to assume that my partner is going
to do her best to make life difficult for the opponents.

L75B says "...so long as his partner is unaware of the violation ..."
.  This statement uses the definite article which means that it refers
to this particular violation.  When the bidding goes 2H P 2S ...  I
have no idea that my partner has psyched this particular time even
though I am aware that it would be a particularly good psyche and so
she might have.  This awareness comes from my own analysis of the
situation not from a 'partnership understanding'.

I have a few psyches stored up in my mind - situations that I think
will be good to psyche - just waiting for the right hand to come
along. I haven't discussed any of these with my partner.  However if
and when they occur I wouldn't be surprised if she was more aware than
the opponents that I might have psyched.  This heightened awareness is
something that we have no 'partnership understanding' about - as far
as I am aware she has no specific knowledge of my proposed psyches -
so even though there is a heightened awareness how can these psyches
be illegal.

As an aside, actually, I fully expect to get into trouble with one of
the psyches as it is or at least will be perceived by many to be very
close to the boundary in the regulations between a legal and illegal
psyche.  So expect to see a thread sometime in the future when I
attract an adverse ruling for this one.  I am 100% convinced that in
fact what I have planned is legal - at least as the regulations are
written.  I am however quickly coming to the view that some
'interpretations' (I would prefer to use the word 'distortions') are
based on what the director wants the law or regulation to say rather
than what it actually says.

Wayne