Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg December 6, 2021

Basic Bidding Formats: Characteristics and Differences

Fritz Helmedag ORCID logo EMAIL logo
From the journal Review of Economics


In standard auction theory, the ‘revenue equivalence theorem’ asserts that the outcomes of the elementary allocation methods coincide. However, bidding processes differ fundamentally with regard to the decision situation of the participants: Is it at all imperative to take into consideration the number of competitors (‘stochastic’ strategy) or not (‘deterministic’ course of action)? Furthermore, established auction theory neglects the operating modes of procurement alternatives under uncertainty. Apart from the lacking knowledge how many rivals have to be beaten, tenderers regularly are ignorant of the buyer’s reserve price. Then it is even more tentative to calculate an offer based on probability theory. Consequently, the suppliers’ propensity to collude increases.

JEL Classification: D 44

Corresponding author: Fritz Helmedag, Economics Department, Chemnitz University of Technology, Thüringer Weg 7, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany, E-mail:


Bose, S., Ozdenoren, E., and Pape, A. (2006). Optimal auctions with ambiguity. Theor. Econ. 1: 411–438.Search in Google Scholar

Crawford, V.P. and Iriberri, N. (2007). Level-k auctions: can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner’s curse and overbidding in private-value auctions? Econometrica 75: 1721–1770, in Google Scholar

Harsanyi, J. (1967). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, part I. The basic model. Manag. Sci. 14: 159–182, in Google Scholar

Harsanyi, J. (1968a). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, part II. Bayesian equilibrium points. Manag. Sci. 14: 320–334, in Google Scholar

Harsanyi, J. (1968b). Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, part III. The basic probability distribution of the game. Manag. Sci. 14: 486–502, in Google Scholar

Helmedag, F. (2004). ‘Ausschreibungsbetrug’ im Licht der Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede von Bietverfahren. Wirtsch. Wettbew. 54: 1000–1012.Search in Google Scholar

Kagel, J.H. and Levin, D. (1986). The winner’s curse and public information in common value auctions. Am. Econ. Rev. 76: 894–920.10.1515/9781400830138.107Search in Google Scholar

Krishna, V. (2010). Auction theory, 2nd ed. Academic Press: Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

Leitzinger, H. (1988). Submission und Preisbildung. Mechanik und ökonomische Effekte der Preisbildung bei Bietverfahren. Carl Heymanns: Köln.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, D. and Ozdenoren, E. (2004). Auctions with uncertain number of bidders. J. Econ. Theor. 118: 229–251, in Google Scholar

Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. Introduction and critical survey. Wiley: New York.Search in Google Scholar

Lucking-Reiley, D. (1999). Using field experiments to test equivalence between auction formats: magic on the internet. Am. Econ. Rev. 89: 1063–1080, in Google Scholar

Matthews, S. (1987). Comparing auctions for risk averse buyers: a buyer’s point of view. Econometrica 55: 633–646, in Google Scholar

Milgrom, P. (1989). Auctions and bidding: a primer. J. Econ. Perspect. 3: 3–22, in Google Scholar

Molho, I. (1997). The economics of information. Lying and cheating in markets and organizations. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford and Malden.Search in Google Scholar

Monezes, F.M. and Monteiro, P.K. (2005). An introduction to auction theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York.Search in Google Scholar

Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in guessing games: an experimental study. Am. Econ. Rev. 85: 1313–1326.Search in Google Scholar

Rasmusen, E. (2007). Games and information. An introduction to game theory, 4th ed. Blackwell: Maldon, Oxford and Carlton.Search in Google Scholar

Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16: 8–37, in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-05-01
Accepted: 2021-10-04
Published Online: 2021-12-06
Published in Print: 2021-11-25

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 1.2.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow