[blml] Is investigation needed after this incident?

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Herman]
>
>  I don't like the repeated error argument. The TD is never to know if
> the error has occured before or not.

Probably no one considers the repeated-error argument a panacea, but
how can you as a director proceed without it?  I.e., what do you put
in its place?

Also, do you really think that information of the form "It should be
X, but sometimes partner forgets" fixes the situation completely?  I
am not convinced that phrases such as "but sometimes partner forgets"
fully protect the other side.  For example, what agreements do you
have in place with your partners when the opponents say that?
Imagine, for example, the worst case, where the opponents say it every
time.

By the way, I cannot recall Grattan ever suggesting a phrase such as
this in an explanation.  Perhaps he is against it as well.  I might
even suggest, as a working hypothesis, that the issue of whether or
not such a phrase is good or bad information is a major rift in the
MS.

Jerry Fusselman