On 4/4/2020 7:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/4/20 9:25 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 21:19, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org >> <mailto:agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>> wrote: >> >> On 4/4/20 9:16 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: >> > Well, that and the fact that you can lower/re-do bids at all. >> > >> > Also the fact that this auction is set up so that winning is not. >> >> >> Doesn't >> >> > For each lot in the Auction, the winner of that lot is the >> player >> > with the highest priority on the Auction who has not won any >> > previous lot. >> >> mean that persons later in the list (i.e. those with lower bids) get >> lots first, since they have higher priorities? >> >> >> No, earlier bids have priority by the previous paragraph. >> >> -Alexis > > > Sorry, I should have been more clear, and I wasn't asking specifically > about this situation. > > Consider an auction with one lot and the following bids: > > - Alice: 2 coins > > - Bob: 1 coin > > > Per Rule 2551, a person's priority is "their position in the list of > persons who have bid on the Auction, sorted by the value of their > non-withdrawn bids in descending order." This list is [Alice, Bob]. > Assuming 0-based indexing (because I can), Alice's priority is 0, and > Bob's priority is 1.
Nice one. Grat: Common usage is when you have a list like this: 1. Queen Elizabeth 2. Prince Charles 3. Prince William 4. Prince George The person on the top is the "highest" on the list despite having the lowest number. > Also per Rule 2551, "For each lot in the Auction, the winner of that lot > is the player with the highest priority on the Auction who has not won > any previous lot." Bob has the highest priority (1 vs. 0), so e is the > winner the sole lot, despite having a smaller bid. >
