[blml] Clarification...

[Ed Reppert]

On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:

> "A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed
> by the partnership."
>
> Though this may sound logical, I believe it is naive and incorrect in
> some cases.  If Mr. Scientist convinces Mr. Beginner to play
> really-difficult-convention X, even if they explicitly agree to this,
> it seems to me misinformation for Mr. Scientist to alert that Mr.
> Beginner's call is part of convention X if the director, on
> questioning Mr. Beginner, finds that he has no idea how to play X

I disagree. If Mr. Beginner has no idea how to play X, then it is, it  
seems to me, incumbent on him not to agree to play it. If he does  
agree, the agreement exists, whatever he knows or does not know. When  
it becomes clear, through partnership experience, that he does *not*  
know it, then it is incumbent on the partnership to either abandon  
the agreement, or work together until Mr. B *does* know it. If the  
latter, then until he knows it, his lack of expertise is to be  
disclosed.