In my experience with high-level negotiation scenarios, dominant strategies play a crucial role. Take the case of company mergers: conventional wisdom suggests avoiding showing your hand, but there's a point where revealing a dominant strategy can discourage competitors from pursuing a bidding war.
Consider two firms, A and B, both eyeing a merger with the smaller firm C. If A reveals its strategy to offer a premium on the current market valuation of C, which B cannot match, B might opt out rather than engage in a fruitless endeavor, saving resources. It's a subtle mix of bluff and the signaling of a dominant strategy. Thoughts?
You've given a textbook example of a signaling game here, where revealing your dominant strategy is also a signal to your competitors about your intentions and capabilities. It's all about commitment and credibility. If Company A's premium offer is credible and B believes A can and will follow through, B has good reason to back off. However, A must be careful; such revelations can also lead to legal issues with market manipulation if not done right. It's a risky play but can pay off massively if executed properly.