I have been on Friday's “Last Chance Trial” and Sunday's “8-Player Events” teams at a number of GPs, and I was very often given the following instruction:

Originally posted by Dear Team Leader:

If some players want to split and there is no Bribery involved, let them, but do not be involved in the actual split: each player gets his due, and it is up to them to uphold their agreement (or not).

That seems reasonnable, but what are we to do in the following situation:
- Astérix is paired down against Numérobis in the last round of a big-ish tournament. Astérix is sure to win a box, maybe two if he wins. Numérobis will win 9 boosters if he looses, 18 if he wins.
- Astérix proposes a split, which Numérobis accepts, then
- Astérix asks for a concession, which Numérobis refuses, then
- Numérobis wins and Astérix refuses to split the prizes.

If we DQ Astérix, we are enforcing the split; if we don't, we allow something that feels a lot like actual Bribery.

P.S. I tried to craft a realistic situation out of the prizes of a RPTQ, but was unable to. Kudos to those who designed them.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 28, 2015 03:26:09 PM)

We have no involvement when players who agree to split then don't share the prizes no matter the outcome of the match. If they cannot resolve it they may be directed at the TO but the TO isn't responsible for upholding the split.

Neither player have broken any rules, we won't DQ Asterix.

Edited Nick Rutkowski (Jan. 27, 2015 06:24:46 PM)

Wait this situation makes no sense. Asterix, the loser of the match, refuses to split the prizes with N… (sorry, I can't do French names), despite N winning the match and hence getting better prizes? So A is just shooting himself in the foot by not taking more prizes for himself due to the split than he would otherwise get by losing the match? I feel like I'm missing something…

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Wait this situation makes no sense.

Sorry about that. The situation was supposed to be that Astérix got better prizes event though he lost to Numérobis. I'll edit the OP to reflect this.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 28, 2015 03:23:48 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Wait this situation makes no sense. Asterix, the loser of the match, refuses to split the prizes with N… (sorry, I can't do French names), despite N winning the match and hence getting better prizes? So A is just shooting himself in the foot by not taking more prizes for himself due to the split than he would otherwise get by losing the match? I feel like I'm missing something…

Although not at all common, I have discovered (as recently as this past weekend) that there are some stores which offer a larger number of packs for second place than for first, as the first prize includes an invite which is presumably more valuable than the difference. It could be that this is one of those cases.

While the specifics of the split may be a curiosity, interesting to some … Nick already pretty well summed it up. We, as Judges, and the TO as well, have no responsibility re: enforcing agreements between players.

A player who makes and then breaks deals like that will quickly acquire a reputation, and he'll get to live with the consequences of his choices.

d:^D

And in some countries, even verbal agreement constitutes a binding legal
contract which can be enforced at the court of law (provided that there
were at least some witnesses of the split to prove it).

2015-01-28 22:28 GMT+01:00 Scott Marshall <

Is there a difference for the finals of single elimination between agreeing to a prize split vs. adjusting the prize distribution for 1st/2nd? In either case, would the TO be able to give the prizing as agreed between the players to the appropriate person, or should they always give “1st place prizes” to the winner, and “2nd place prizes” to the player who dropped in the finals, and let the players handle their own split?