Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
If "Bidder A" makes an $1100 max bid and is currently leading at $1000, he still claimed that $1100 slot first. He was the first person to stake out and claim that max, that slot. He was the first to pledge his money at that level. Therefore, he should be rewarded for that-- and the reward comes in the form of winning in a tie situation. The tie should favor the man who stepped up first. So when "Bidder B" comes in at $1100, "Bidder A"' should still now lead at $1100, as his max gets triggered.
Same scenario should happen if "Bidder A" makes a bid of $1000 and is leading. Then he decides he's willing to pay more, and subsequently ups his max to $1100. He still was the first one to be willing to pony up $1100, so his bid should take precedence over any later comer. "Bidder A" isn't "bullying" other bidders; he stepped up first with his money.
|
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
The same situation could still arise in a live auction. Suppose bidder A is winning at $1000. Bidder B and bidder C are both interested at $1100. If Bidder B get his paddle up a fraction of a second before bidder C, bidder B is still the high bidder despite the fact that the other party wished to execute an equivalent bid.
In all of the scenarios described, all the parties not currently winning still have the opportunity to bid. By allowing a party to occupy a bid increment of their choosing, it doesn't prevent any interested party from bidding further.