Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article 
<39d88fb6-eb6d-4adf-be95-2b37bb01e9f0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Bob <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2:02 am, 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.

Since the meaning of a bid is whatever your partner****p has agreed to, 
the "meaning" and "agreement" are essentially the same thing.

> 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".

What's going on here is that you don't REALLY have an agreement.  You 
have agreed to a convention by name, but this is too vague if there are 
many different understandings of how the convention is played.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***