Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Apr 21, 2:02=A0am, Barry Margolin <bar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

" I think the Laws are (confusingly) using different wording for what
they intend to be the same concepts: agreements/understandings,
significance, and meaning."

The same concept or the same concepts? The problem is that there are
different concepts. To me "agreement", "understanding", and "meaning"
are all different and seem at this time to be relatively easy to
distinguish. And then why did they use different words if they meant
the same concept? Of course, why did they use words without defining
them, etc.

The other problem for me is defining "agreement". I can deal with
agreement as encompassing the explicit agreements and the agreements
formed by past auctions and the meta-agreements and meaning that can
be extracted from knowing the agreements about other bids that weren't
made. But my sense WAS that when we said "Cappelletti?' "Yes." there
was more to our agreement then just this one word. But when I tried to
explain what the "extended agreement" was, I couldn't identify it. Or,
to be more precise, I couldn't find anything that also worked for
doubles when we don't discuss when they are on, etc. That's when I
latched onto the concept of "understanding".