The distinction you are drawing is real and it matters. Win rate without coverage context is not a measure of discipline, it is a measure of presence, and a fund reporting 80 percent wins in a county with no other institutional buyers is describing a monopoly, not a strategy.
I have not seen county-level bid coverage disclosed in a standardized way in fund materials. Most decks stay at the portfolio level, reporting average winning bid rate and net yield, occasionally broken out by state. County-level coverage would require the fund to track, store, and then choose to publish competitive data that most auction administrators do not aggregate for them. Some jurisdictions move toward online auctions with accessible bid logs, and a fund operating at scale could reconstruct coverage from those logs if they wanted to. Whether any do and then surface it in investor materials is the question, and I want to be honest that I do not have direct fund-deck experience to draw on here. That is the kind of thing someone who has reviewed a meaningful sample of fund DDQs (due diligence questionnaires, the standardized document sets that investors use to evaluate fund managers) would be better placed to answer than I am.
What I can say is that coverage ratio, defined as the number of competing bids per certificate before the winning bid landed, would let you separate thin-auction wins from contested ones in exactly the way you are describing. It would also let you watch a fund's win rate change as a county attracts more institutional attention, which is a useful signal about yield compression risk ahead of it showing up in reported returns.
If you have reviewed decks where any version of this was disclosed, even imperfectly, I would be genuinely curious what form it took.
