 Suppose that Lizzi can observe the state of the world, but Joanna cannot. We can interpret this game as follows: Joanna and Lizzi would like to have a dinner together prepared by Aldo, their favorite chef. Aldo alternates between \(A\) and \(B\), the two branches of Sorriso, their favorite restaurant. State \(\omega_i\) is Aldo’s location that day. At state \(\omega_1 (\omega_2)\), Aldo is at \(A (B)\). Lizzi, who is on Sorriso’s special mailing list, receives notice of \(\omega_i\). Lizzi’s and Joanna’s best outcome occurs when they meet where Aldo is working, so they can have their planned dinner. If they meet but miss Aldo, they are disappointed and do not have dinner after all. If either goes to \(A\) and finds herself alone, then she is again disappointed and does not have dinner. But what each really wants to avoid is going to \(B\) if the other goes to \(A\). If either of them arrives at \(B\) alone, she not only misses dinner but must pay the exorbitant parking fee of the hotel which houses \(B\), since the headwaiter of \(B\) refuses to validate the parking ticket of anyone who asks for a table for two and then sits alone. This is what Harsanyi (1967) terms a game of incomplete information, since the game’s payoffs depend upon states which not all the agents know.