... this point:

>> That action lies somewhere in the gray area between the outcome that is changed everything I don't bid on anything, and the outcome we didn't have because the auction process works in spite of our little games. <<

At least you have the courage to admit this; I admire that. But, it isn't really a "grey area" at all. As I said to Peter in my other post, it's exactly the other side of the chip from shill bidding. And, we don't know at all that the auction process "worked" -- all we know is that our little consortium didn't win. Who knows what the final bid might have been with complete "competition" among all those interested in the chips.

BTW, neither you nor anyone else has ever satisfactorily explained why shill bidding is "dishonest". Let me pose this hypothetical:

Suzie Seller has a widget she wants to sell. She thought it was worth $200 and would have been happy to sell if for that price. Billy Bobb Buyer comes up to her table at the widget convention, looks at her widget and says, "I like that widget. What's your best price?" Suzie says, "$500." Billy Bobb whistles and replies, "Wow, that's more than I can afford. Would you take $200." Suzie says, "No, but I'll go down to $400." Billy Bobb says, "Well, I think I could go as high as $300, but no more." Suzie says, "Sold."

Now, was Suzie being dishonest? She lied in response to Billy Bobb's first question. And ended up selling the widget for $100 more than she thought it was worth. Finally, is that any less "dishonest" than if the $300 selling price had been arrived at in an auction at which Suzie placed a shill bid of $250 on top of Billy Bobb's opening bid of $200 before letting him win the widget for $300?

----- jim o\-S