... here Peter.

>> ... what is an item's value?

1) Michael says an item is worth what people will pay for it.
2) Professor Reilly <g> says that items have intrinsic value.
3) Marx says an items value is a measure of the labor that created it.

(btw Micheal is right) <<

Although I think items do have intrinsic value, with respect to casino chips it is vanishingly small (or, as we say in legal terms, "de minimis"). On the other hand, I also agree (and have said so here several times) that the fair value of any item is the price at which a seller is willing to sell and a buyer is willing to pay. Free market economy. Very simple.

>> ... The real question is what does Bob reasonably expect this auction to measure.

If the rules prohibit shill bidding...
If the rules permit shill bidding ... <<

Well, now Peter, you've turned the discussion in the right direction here. Because, as you apparently noticed, my hypothetical did no posit whether or not there is a "rule" against shill bidding. The REAL ISSUE I am addressing is whether or not there SHOULD BE a rule against shill bidding. That is, is there really any harm done to Billy Bobb (or any other bidder) if shill bidding is permitted.

>> ... if Bob reasonably expects ... <<

And that's the big IF, isn't it? By your hypothesis, if shill bidding is permitted, there is no reasonable expectation of the type described and therefore shill bidding is OK. If shill bidding is not permitted, it's not OK.

BUT, that still doesn't answer the ultimate question: Is there a REASON why shill bidding should be prohibited? ----- jim o\-S