A bidder has the same exact responsibility in
reading an auction description as does the seller
have in writing a clear auction description.

The following case history examples should not be
expected to be accepted:

1) If a description says a chip is notched and the
scan also shows the notched chip, clearly...then a
retraction reason of: "I didn't know the chip was
notched" should not be accepted as a valid reason to
retract.

2) If an auction is a Dutch Auction and the bidder
who initially bid for two chips decides that he now
wants one, should not expect this reason for
retraction to be accepted as valid. Unless, that
is, the bidder actually does rebid for one chip.

3) If a bidder is bidding against others which
result in the high-bidder saying he has gone too
high and decides to retract his bid, should not
be accepted as a valid reason to retract.

4) When two exact chips are being listed in one lot,
the initial high-bidder who retracts his bid which
was above the minimum bid for reason of learning a
friend is now interested in one of the two chips,
and now retracts his bid to rebid at the minimum bid
level where his friend can now outbid $1 over and
now winning the lot to sell the duplicate chip to
the initial high-bidder, should not be accepted as
valid reason to retract without at least explaining
this to the seller first...and not having the seller
learn of this from the winner of the lot at a later
date.

The expression: "Should not be expected as a valid
reason to accept" should be understood as meaning an
action should be considered by the seller along with
making the history known, publicly.

The above expression is IMHO.

JB