Retracting Bids in the DPF Auctions?
I've been thinking about this too, as we don't have a rule in place. Absent a rule, I don't think it matters whether the auctioneer specifies that a bid is locked.
My personal view:
~ To protect the auctioneer, a bid which has been posted as #1 on the leader board should be locked, because other potential bidders may have decided that they could not compete with the #1 bid. I don't see a need to lock other bids.
~ An auctioneer can choose any bid in the end, regardless of the leader board, but it doesn't necessarily follow that other bids should be locked.
~ Ties will happen. I think that if you are tied for #1, you should be allowed to retract your bid, unless the other #1 bid(s) is retracted first - ie. only a bidder who is in the #1 spot alone would be locked in. Since the auctioneer was having difficulty deciding which bid should be #1, (s)he shouldn't be terribly prejudiced if one of them is retracted, because the remaining #1 bid is very close in value to the auctioneer.
I've been thinking about this too, as we don't have a rule in place. Absent a rule, I don't think it matters whether the auctioneer specifies that a bid is locked.
My personal view:
~ To protect the auctioneer, a bid which has been posted as #1 on the leader board should be locked, because other potential bidders may have decided that they could not compete with the #1 bid. I don't see a need to lock other bids.
~ An auctioneer can choose any bid in the end, regardless of the leader board, but it doesn't necessarily follow that other bids should be locked.
~ Ties will happen. I think that if you are tied for #1, you should be allowed to retract your bid, unless the other #1 bid(s) is retracted first - ie. only a bidder who is in the #1 spot alone would be locked in. Since the auctioneer was having difficulty deciding which bid should be #1, (s)he shouldn't be terribly prejudiced if one of them is retracted, because the remaining #1 bid is very close in value to the auctioneer.
Actually, if we lock only the #1 bid I predict we will get MORE ties and not fewer. On the other hand, we could lock the top 3 bids and not allow ties. I really do think that sometimes an auctioneer is having a hard time between two (or more?) bids. To only lock one of them may not give the auctioneer the freedom to make their ultimate choice or may force them to delay a leaderboard as a way to keep the multiple bids of interest in play.
See, I clearly think too much about these things, especially since I rarely bid on them.
I always said when I ran an auction, I would never do a tie for first, but when I recently had my first auction I did have a tie for first. I felt awful, but I honestly couldn't decide. Maybe if there is a tie for first, the auctioneer should have to pick within a certain amount of time. I tried to pick between the two as fast as I could.
so even though an auctioneer states that the first place bid is locked for his auction, it really isnt?
So, if a bid placed by any bidder (even the #1 leader) isn't locked in and binding, why do the rules force the auctioneer to go through with the auction even if they don't like any of the bids? That seems a bit unfair...
~ To protect the auctioneer, a bid which has been posted as #1 on the leader board should be locked, because other potential bidders may have decided that they could not compete with the #1 bid.
~ Ties will happen. I think that if you are tied for #1, you should be allowed to retract your bid, unless the other #1 bid(s) is retracted first - ie. only a bidder who is in the #1 spot alone would be locked in. Since the auctioneer was having difficulty deciding which bid should be #1, (s)he shouldn't be terribly prejudiced if one of them is retracted, because the remaining #1 bid is very close in value to the auctioneer.
A tie to me is just an attempt to get more by the auctioner.
Imagine if eBay allowed people to bid the same amount and then you were tied for winning bidder. It would be a game of chicken to see who would bid more, probably at the last second.
Pre-bidding should be banned too. If we're making ammendments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?