[blml] The reall issue of "no agreement"

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:58 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>
>> Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership
>> agreement" and
>> argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be
>> different from
>> the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are
>> miscommunicating.
>
> That's semantic nonsense.  Two people cannot form an "actual
> agreement" about anything unless they "agree".  If "they are
> miscommunicating" at the time, they may think they are "agreeing" to
> something, but they would be wrong.
>
> If Bob and I discuss his selling me a book but fail to explicitly set
> a price, and after the conversation is over I think we agreed he
> would sell it to me for $10 and he thinks we agreed he would sell it
> to me for $20, we have not agreed that he will sell it to me at all,
> even though we both think we have.
>
> The laws presume a single "objective" APU, while recognizing that its
> value may be null.  You have to agree on something before it can be
> anything else.

When my partner and I exchange "Negative Doubles through 3S" and "yes",  
that creates an understanding in my head of our agreement, and it creates  
an understanding in her head of our agreement. This understanding includes  
not only doubles we make, but bids we make instead of double, and probably  
even balancing action when a double has not occurred.

It is natural that our understandings do not perfectly correspond. You are  
saying that "actual partnership understanding" is only the points on which  
we agree. I will infer that where we do not agree, our actual partnership  
understanding is "no common understanding".

When asked the meaning of my partner's bid, I cannot report the APU. I  
know only my understanding. So presumably I report that, correct?

If my partner and I have the same understanding, my explanation is  
correct. If my partner and I have a different understanding, the correct  
explanation was "no common understanding" and my explanation was wrong.  
Therefore the opps deserve protection.

Can you give me that if I forget about an agreement, that forgetting  
changes my understanding and hence the common partnership understanding?

Suppose I want to bet that I have one understanding and my partner has  
another. Is this even possible? If it is, can I answer "no common  
understanding" and hope I am right?

Bob