I'm trying to determine the line between a legal split of prizes and what constitutes bribery/wagering

Scenarios:

a) player A and B are in the last round of swiss and are the only ones with X-0 record. The prize is 5 bst for 1st and 4 for 2nd. They decide to ID, split 8 bst and play a match for the extra booster (wagering?).

b) player A and B are in the final of a GPT. Player A says “I just want the byes, you can have the booster prize”, player B replies “ok, I concede then”.

Are there slight wording deviations of scenario B that might make it a different case? For example, if player A explicitly says "will you concede so we can split prizes (byes for me, boosters for you).

Hi,

Sheldon had an article made about that, Concessions and Prize Splits its quite extensive but can give some headlines.

And quoting from there, for what i belive is useful for your questions:

Peter gets to the finals against Linus. They agree to the following split: Linus gets the Pro Tour slot and the $250, Peter gets all six boxes of boosters. Peter drops from the tournament.

Peter gets to the finals against Linus. They agree to the following split: Linus gets the Pro Tour slot and two boxes of boosters, Peter gets the $250 cash and four boxes of boosters. Peter drops from the tournament. Note that Wizards will send the money to Linus; Peter will have to trust him to pay up.

Fresh from his win at the PTQ, Linus goes to the Pro Tour. He's playing Kai in the Finals. The normal prizes are $30,000 for first and $20,000 for second. The two of them agree that whichever of them wins will give the other $2500.

Don't know if its up to date, and i'm also not always sure how to handle that kind of situations.

Edited José Moreira (Jan. 23, 2013 12:08:07 AM)

a) player A and B are in the last round of swiss and are the only ones with
X-0 record. The prize is 5 bst for 1st and 4 for 2nd. They decide to ID,
split 8 bst and play a match for the extra booster (wagering?).

This one really depends on how they came to their decisions. The important
thing is that the players cannot make one dependent on the other. They
cannot go “Do you want to split and ID?” This is bad because you're are
saying I'll agree to a draw if we split the prize making the outcome of the
match dependent on getting something. What the players would have to do in
this situation to be in the clear is “Do you want to ID?” “Sounds like a
good plan.” “Oh hey, since now we'll both be 1st and 2nd, do you want to
split the prizes and go ahead and play for the extra pack?” “Sounds like an
awesome plan.” In this case, they've already agreed to the ID before
agreeing to any kind of prize split. Alternatively, they could agree on a
prize split and then decide to ID. The important distinction is that one
cannot be dependent on the other. Say this was a Top 2 play-off match
instead of Swiss and IDing wasn't required for them to be 1st and 2nd, it
would still be fine for them to go “Do you want to split the prize and play
for the extra pack?” and play it out. This is not wagering or bribery.
However, it is bribery if they went the other way and said the loser gets
the extra pack, because you are now giving an incentive for one of the
players to lose.


b) player A and B are in the final of a GPT. Player A says “I just want the
byes, you can have the booster prize”, player B replies “ok, I concede
then”.

In the Finals of a single elimination bracket, the two players are allowed
to split the prizes any way they want with one player dropping from the
tournament so that in essence they don't play the game. Check out the 5th
paragraph of section 5.2 Collusion and Bribery in the Magic Tournament
Rules. Also check the 7th paragraph for an example.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

b) player A and B are in the final of a GPT. Player A says “I just want the
byes, you can have the booster prize”, player B replies “ok, I concede
then”.

In the Finals of a single elimination bracket, the two players are allowed
to split the prizes any way they want with one player dropping from the
tournament so that in essence they don't play the game. Check out the 5th
paragraph of section 5.2 Collusion and Bribery in the Magic Tournament
Rules. Also check the 7th paragraph for an example.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

Ok, so would you treat the following scenarions exactly the same?

b1)
Player A “do you want to split prizes with me getting the byes and you getting the boosters?”
Player B “Ok”

b2)
Player A “I'll give you the boosters I'll win for 1st place if you concede and I win the trial!”
Player B “Ok”

One question i would ahve to ask Jorge is in situation B - Is the booster Prize under hte tournament struction going to first place IN ADDITION to the byes or is it the prize for finishing second?

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

Ok, so would you treat the following scenarions exactly the same?

b1)
Player A “do you want to split prizes with me getting the byes and you getting the boosters?”
Player B “Ok”

b2)
Player A “I'll give you the boosters I'll win for 1st place if you concede and I win the trial!”
Player B “Ok”

b1 is totally fine.

b2 is rather awkward. Offering a prize for a match result is still technically bribery, but we may want to ask, “Don't you mean to say ‘I’ll give you the boosters I'll win for 1st place if you agree to drop from the event?'” Player A may not realize that the outcome is the same for him but the way he asked is problematic. I know many players who know it's ok to ask for this kind of split in the finals of a single elimination event but don't realize that it actually requires the opponent to drop rather than concede. I wouldn't want to punish the player for not being intimately familiar with the required wording to make this split legal, when his request wouldn't have really affected the integrity of the tournament at that point (as long as we're there to clarify “drop” vs. “concede”).

Splitting prizes and ID'ing are common across all tournaments. I don't think I have seen an FNM or comp REL tournament where two people are left undefeated and such an offer is not made.

The players at my local store have been educated on policy, and separate the two offers. However, everyone knows what the real offer is. These two are always connected. Players know that when they agree to a prize split that they are also agreeing to the forthcoming ID offer and vice versa.

Now, I have seen a prize split without an ID. Both players were un-defeated going into the final round and agreed on the split. However, the loser of the match did not finish 2nd in the standings, but dropped all the way down to 5th. This led to a very interesting situation when it came to splitting prizes and it also led to the unspoken agreement between players that the ID and prize split are always connected from there on.

My question is, is there a benefit to the game to force players to speak legalese in order to agree to what everyone already knows is being agreed to or should we consider a small revision in the IPG?

Josh and Bob make valuable points. I see players “breaking” the rules all of the time due only to their misunderstanding of the formal terminology of the Tournament Rules and judge expectations. In nearly all cases, when it matters, at Competitive level events, the two players summon a judge and ask about the process. I suppose enough players have been burned by a poor choice of language or overzealous judging that they are quite squeamish about doing anything that might get them DQ'd even when entirely legal.

In both of the cases, I would argue they are legit. My position, like Josh's is to help the players as much as I am able to achieve their goal knowing that what they want to happen can be done so long as they choose the right language and specific sequence of words. Again, as Josh noted, few players are super careful about the formal difference between conceding in the finals and dropping after the match has started. I have a few back-pocket statements that I use to try to help players understand what we expect as a tool for education, but in nearly all cases, I am fine with their attempt and allow it without prejudice.

In short, when confronted with such a case, you can say simply, “You can agree to a prize split as long as you do not offer anything that is not already a part of what is in the event's prizes and the match's outcome - win, lose, or draw - is not discussed as part of the agreement. Any player may drop from the event at any time and dropping does not count as an ID or a concession.” This is usually enough to allow the players to grasp the meaning. Sometimes, one or both will want to ask a clarifying question. I also often note that if they have a question to follow up, that we step away from the match just in case their question might also be sketchy though not their fault. Once I understand the question, I will most often return to the table and explain to both my answer in a context within the rules.

Just to make sure I understand, because this is definitely something I want to have a solid grasp of - even though an ID/drop is often a necessary component or consequence of achieving a prize split because of standings/tournament process, the important part is that the prize split not be offered as an incentive for the ID/drop?

In other words:

Saying “If we ID we can split the top 2 prizes, what do you think” is okay, but saying “I'll split prizes with you if we ID, what do you think” is not?

Ideally, neither statement is okay. Fundamentally, both are offering the incentive of a prize split for an ID. As such, this ties and incentive to a match result. The right way to do this would be for Player A to say, “Would you agree to a prize split.?” Period. Then, after that portion is done and Player B has responded. Then either can offer a draw.

Now, having said this, the reality is that players and judges know what is going on and what it trying to be achieved. The technicalities of the language are both daunting and confusing. The scenario that most often comes up for me is that the players will call a judge and one or both will say, “We want to draw and split the prizes . . . is this okay?” The worst thing about this is that everyone is clear on the intent. And by the time the question is asked, both players know that the plan is to ID and then split the prizes. Technically, we are already in DQ territory now. A very, very undesirable outcome.

So, what do we do? My position here is that there is a huge divide between the technical language of the rules designed to protect the integrity of our events and the reality of what players and judges all know to be a common and even desirable practice in these circumstances. As such, so long as I feel confident that the players are trying to do what is right and allowed within our guidelines, I will work to help them achieve their ends without getting themselves disqualified. In this case, I would note for them that any incentive, including a prize split, for a match result is not legal. What they can do, legally, is to agree to a prize split or not no matter what happens in the match. I will then address both players squarely and sternly, “Do you both agree to a prize split no matter how this match will end up?” I usually also give them a serious look that tells them that they need to follow my lead or the snipers in the rafters will take someone out. In almost all cases, the players agree enthusiastically and with a bit of trepidation at my sudden scary-face. Then, I will metamorphose into Happy-Helpful Judge and say, “Players may agree to drop or draw a match at any time. Do you guys want to play or what?” At this point, both players will typically breath a sigh of relief at having survived and either tell me they want to ID or play it out. I then walk away and hope to judge another day.

The salient point then is that the prizes and the match results need to be divorced from each other?

That is correct. The intent being that the prizes have no bearing on how
people decide to see out their match.
On Jan 22, 2013 10:40 PM, “Nathaniel Lawrence” <

With the important exception of single elimination rounds where they can be
tied together but only with the “result” as one of the players dropping
before the match starts.

Thanks for the insights!

Technically, they shouldn't be talking about any kind of prize distribution when talking about an ID. Here's what a judge should say to help them:

“You guys can ID, and you'll come in 1st and 2nd for sure, but that'll be determined by the tie breakers. We'll pay out the packs to 1st and 2nd as normal.”

The players are not allowed to link and ID to prize split in the last round of a Swiss. I know that this does happen a lot in FNM Swiss events, but it shouldn't. Remember that there are still other players in the event, and if one of these players were to lose, he might not get prizes, so this is still a concern.

Having said this, I do think that the judge should be proactive and help them here. The judge can announce going into round X-1 that splits are tricky and not necessarily allowed in a Swiss, so please come and talk to the judge. Then you can explain about the ID as above.

If the players are ok with 1st and 2nd either way on breakers, everything is fine, but that's usually the extent of what should happen in a Swiss.

Eric Shukan
Woburn, MA


—– Original Message —–
From: Nathaniel Lawrence
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Bribery/Wagering (Competitive REL)


Just to make sure I understand, because this is definitely something I want to have a solid grasp of - even though an ID/drop is often a necessary component or consequence of achieving a prize split because of standings/tournament process, the important part is that the prize split not be offered as an incentive for the ID/drop?

In other words:

Saying “If we ID we can split the top 2 prizes, what do you think” is okay, but saying “I'll split prizes with you if we ID, what do you think” is not?

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/151919/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2630/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2630/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit