You are a Head Jugde of a PPTQ. Both semifinals has already ended and players are taking a short break before finals. After a few minutes, when you are going to ask them to begin their match, they come to you and the TO and inform you, that they agreed on a split.

The original Prize distribution was following:
1st place - 14 boosters + rPTQ slot
2nd place -28 boosters

The players informed you, that they agreed on splitting the boosters evenly (21 - 21) and one of the players dropping.

When questioned, one of the players told you that they spent the break discussing potential split, and that the discussion went roughly as following:
A: Are you playing mainly to get the rPTQ slot, or the Snapcaster?
B: I play mostly to get the Snapcaster.
A: I just want to play at the rPTQ, I don't care too much about the Snapcaster. Don't you want to concede to me?
B: OK

When asked the other player what were the conditions of the split, he tels you, “I'm not sure I can answer that.” When later asked by another player (player C, eliminated in quarterfinals) about whether he gets the Snapcaster out of the deal, he says: “I can't confirm that.”

You spent some time discussing with player A the details later via online chat, where he states the following arguments:
A: “I know, you can't split slot and Snapcaster, that's why I haven't offered it”
A: “I haven't promised him anything, it's only up to my good will, whether I give him the Snapcaster”
A. “It's the same as when paired down in last round, conceding your opponent player into TOP8 and hoping he shares prizes with you”

So, is the fact that no explicit deal was made enough for you not no rule Bribery?
Is the fact that this split doesn't make any sense (conceding player gets less prizes, than if he would lose the match) without there being another incentive enough for you to rule the bribery?
Is the fact that they were discussing the Snapcaster prior to the decission to concede of any relevace?

Thanks for your input.

From MTR 5.2 Bribery: Example: In the finals of a 1-slot Preliminary Pro Tour Qualifier that offers a travel award and an invitation to the winner, the two finalists may agree to split the tournament prizes, but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the tournament, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop from the tournament. That player is then free to split the remainder of the prizes as agreed upon. The travel award and invitation are a single item and may not be split.

Because there are only 2 players left, they have much more leeway in what is allowed and what isn't. What they did is perfectly legal, and they chose their words and actions with great care. I appreciate!

Judges are surely very inquisitive about whether Bribery can be implicit, this comes up at least once a month. See http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/15377/ http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/24027/

This seems like a strong case for Bribery. I would investigate further.

So, is the fact that no explicit deal was made enough for you not no rule Bribery?

No, it is not “enough”, you must investigate.

Is the fact that this split doesn't make any sense (conceding player gets less prizes, than if he would lose the match) without there being another incentive enough for you to rule the bribery?

No, it is not “enough”, you must investigate. (It sure helps, though!)

Is the fact that they were discussing the Snapcaster prior to the decission to concede of any relevace?

Absolutely!

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Because there are only 2 players left, they have much more leeway in what is allowed and what isn't. What they did is perfectly legal, and they chose their words and actions with great care. I appreciate!

The Snapcaster Mage promo is not a prize from this event, and cannot be used as part of a prize split. It is a reward for participating in the RPTQ. (as you yourself said in http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/15647/)

Edited Dan Collins (Feb. 14, 2016 09:17:04 PM)

Originally posted by David Záleský:

A: Are you playing mainly to get the rPTQ slot, or the Snapcaster?

This, is where the bribery happens. What Snapcaster? There are no Snapcasters to be earned. (Yes I understand it's a participation promo.) The whole point of this question is to fish if the player might be interested in conceding for the promo.

To me this entire conversation should not have happened and it's a DQ without a doubt.

Originally posted by David Záleský:

A. “It's the same as when paired down in last round, conceding your opponent player into TOP8 and hoping he shares prizes with you”

No it's not, it's like talking about a prize split while hinting at a concession before conceding.