From Bribery section 5.2 (important parts bolded):

“The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive, nor may any in-game decision be influenced in this manner. Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an offer calls for a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner. Players may not make any offers to tournament officials in an attempt to influence the outcome of a ruling”.

Also from MTR:

“Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash, store credit, prize tickets, and/or unopened product as prizes may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly. The players may end the tournament at that point or continue to play. All players still in the tournament must agree to the arrangement”.

Ok, so far we have rules governing bribery and split. However from same 5.2 section we have:

“(…) As an exception, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes according to their resulting ranking”.

What exactly does this exception means?

If I understood correctly that's means players can negociate uneven splits on finals (notice the lack of “evenly” in the exception), because if it was only for even splits there's was no need for this exception, as it would be the same situation really.

Considering a pptq for example, is the winner's slot negotiable? It's certainly part of the prize, so it would be acceptable if players agreed one player gets all prizes and drop while the other win by drop?

While that could be argued as a non bribe I believe that's really against the spirit of the philosophy. Can players negociate uneven splits on finals? If not why the this special case in the document?

Yes, that exception allows players to split all prizes not yet awarded as they see fit.

Originally posted by Diego Zarate:

is the winner's slot negotiable?

Yes, but be careful here - you can't attach any value to Byes or an RPTQ invite. You can, as you asked, agree that one player gets the byes or invite, the other player drops and gets all the other prizes.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

you can't attach any value to Byes or an RPTQ invite

Can you clarify what this means?

For example, you can't say “the invite is worth $100, so… (insert whatever comes next)”.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

For example, you can't say “the invite is worth $100, so… (insert whatever comes next)”.

d:^D

Help me out, Scott. That's something that players might say if it's leading into the discussion of an uneven split, say, “I get the win and invite, and you get $100 more (or 25 packs more, or whatever) in prizes than me”. Is that Bribery? Is it only Bribery if that $100 isn't coming from the prizes for the event?

This exception has been an exception for a long time. It's intended to allow the 2 players in the final of a Top-8 or the last round of a single-elim event to split the prizes without playing the match.

One player may want the invite while the other player would prefer the prizes. In that case they agree that Player A gets the invite and Player B gets the rest of the prize, Player A will win by drop.

If you start introducing value of the invite - say the foil on offer at the RPTQ, you start to imply that by letting Player A have the invite you are expecting something in addition to the prizes in return.

You also cannot offer as part of the prize split anything that you would also win by getting the invite - so a PPTQ finalist can't offer the RPTQ foil plus booster prizes from the PPTQ in exchange for the invite.

Hope that clears things up.

That was unexpected… I'm having a hard time thinking that this is not against the philosophy.

For example, if this happens on swiss: “Hey can you drop? if you drop I will give you all boosters I get” Big no no.

If the same offer happens on the finals, it's all right? Something along the lines “Hey, can you drop? I only want the invite, if you drop I will give you all boosters”.

I'm not trying to be dense or argue against this, just trying to clarify. If the philosophy is to be lax about bribery on finals I will accept and move on.

Diego, the rules for Bribery aren't “lax”, there's just a very specific exception stated in the rules.

And yes, in the finals, you can say “I'll give you all the other prizes if you let me win and get the byes/invite”.

Mark Brown is correct - that exception has been in the rules for a LONG time, at least a dozen years, probably longer.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

For example, you can't say “the invite is worth $100, so… (insert whatever comes next)”.

And to clarify further: “you can't say…” means what? Is that Bribery and a DQ, or is it some other infraction/remedy?

In my PPTQs, if it looks like the remaining two players do not want to play it out (as only one of them is interested in the RPTQ slot), I always try to be proactive and tell them at least:

“You are allowed to negotiate who will win the slot and how you will distribute your booster packs you are about to get. However, you can't put anything outside this tournament into the mix. Especially not the promo Snapcaster.”

and

“Note that this is an exception to the normal rules, because you are the only two players remaining in the tournament and so your aggreement does not interfere with interests of any other players. Remember not to do this in any other part of your future event.”


And, yes, Eli, otherwise it is a DQ for Bribery. Which is probably the most unfortunate outcome for the players. That is, for me, the main reason to go proactive in this - to prevent DQs caused by ignorance.

Wait a sec, I'm not sure I get it. Alright, so tell me where I'm going wrong:

So let's say we're playing the finals of a GPT, and I'm going to the GP and you aren't. So I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, let me have the byes, and we'll split the prize evenly”. This is OK.

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, let me have the byes, you can have <some non-even split in favor of you>”. This is OK.

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, and I think having byes gives me <some percentage> additional chance to get <some amount of prizes> at the GP. Therefore, I value the byes at <some value>. Let me have the byes, and you can have <equivalent value> extra prizes”. This is…ok? Maybe?

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, I'd like you to concede to me, in exchange for <some prize split>”. This is not ok (although logistically equivalent to the first example, except that instead of conceding, the player is dropped from the event, which is equivalent except in the most semantic of terms)…?

New situation: It's the finals of a PPTQ, to which, for whatever reason, I want to go to the RPTQ and you don't. I say to you, “The RPTQ promo this year is <expensive card> with value <some value>. Therefore, going to the RPTQ to me is worth <some value>. So if I can go to the RPTQ, you can have <equivalent value> extra prizes”. This is…not ok? I think? Although I don't understand why this is different from the “The byes are worth…” example above.

This seems confusing.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Sept. 22, 2016 01:35:09 PM)

You're making this too complicated.

If there are byes or an invite on the line, players can do the following in the finals:

* Choose a prize distribution from the literal, physical prizes yet to be awarded from that event's prize pool.
* Choose to have one player drop contingent upon that prize distribution.

Any outside money, product, etc. is not allowed. Anything you think you'll get by attending a future event (such as a GP Playmat or RPTQ Promo) is outside product, even if you won't go that event unless you win this one.

Simple.

There was some confusion about discussions about discussing the “worth” of
the prizes in the finals.
This is only a problem if someone introduces something extra to the prizes.
Example #1:
PPTQ: 1st prize - RPTQ invite + 12 packs & 2nd prize - 12 packs
If Player A says “I value the invite at $200, so I'll give you $100 cash
and I'll take the invite (and we each get the 12 packs)”
To the players, they may think they are doing an “even” split, since
“Invite - $100 (Player A) = $100 (Player B).”

Example #2:
Same prize payouts at #1. Player A says “I value the invite way more than
the 24 packs, so I'll happily take the invite and you take the 24 packs”

The second example is fine, since nothing was added to the prizes. The
first isn't.

If the players in the finals of a GPT or PPTQ agree to a prize split/redistribution, one of them MUST drop, correct? They can't negotiate prizes for winner and loser, then play the match? If neither wants to drop, they would have to take prizes as they are posted, although they can redistribute privately after the prizes are awarded, of course.

Does that all sound correct?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

So let's say we're playing the finals of a GPT, and I'm going to the GP and you aren't. So I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, let me have the byes, and we'll split the prize evenly”. This is OK.

Yes

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, let me have the byes, you can have <some non-even split in favor of you>”. This is OK.

Yes

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, and I think having byes gives me <some percentage> additional chance to get <some amount of prizes> at the GP. Therefore, I value the byes at <some value>. Let me have the byes, and you can have <equivalent value> extra prizes”. This is…ok? Maybe?

No. You can only offer prizes that are on offer at the event you are playing in

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Same situation, I say to you, “I'm going to the GP, I'd like you to concede to me, in exchange for <some prize split>”. This is not ok (although logistically equivalent to the first example, except that instead of conceding, the player is dropped from the event, which is equivalent except in the most semantic of terms)…?

The final of a Top 8 requires the prize split to include someone dropping not conceding.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

New situation: It's the finals of a PPTQ, to which, for whatever reason, I want to go to the RPTQ and you don't. I say to you, “The RPTQ promo this year is <expensive card> with value <some value>. Therefore, going to the RPTQ to me is worth <some value>. So if I can go to the RPTQ, you can have <equivalent value> extra prizes”. This is…not ok? I think? Although I don't understand why this is different from the “The byes are worth…” example above.

Not ok.

Joni Bailey
If the players in the finals of a GPT or PPTQ agree to a prize split/redistribution, one of them MUST drop, correct? They can't negotiate prizes for winner and loser, then play the match? If neither wants to drop, they would have to take prizes as they are posted, although they can redistribute privately after the prizes are awarded, of course.

Does that all sound correct?

If they want to play it out, they can agree to a prize split as they could at any point in the event - “shall we split the prizes evenly and play it out? Winner takes 75% loser takes 25%?” etc. Theoretically they could still play it out with winner taking the invite/byes and the loser taking all the boosters if they both want to go and want to get reasonable compensation for losing.