This situation occurred at a 9 person GPT this weekend. I'd like some opinions and/or clarification if my thought processes are incorrect.

Anthony sits down and says “We need to hurry, I need to go get food”
Nick says “Well you can always just concede”
Anthony responds with “I can’t do that, but tell you what. If you concede to me I’ll give you all of the boosters”
Everyone laughs, Anthony then reiterates “I’m serious”
Nick looks at the judge sitting right next to them and says “Umm, isn’t that bribery?”
Anthony then states he was just joking since Nick was joking with his statement.
Judges go off to discuss, come back & state this is a legal concession by drop since it occurred right before the final match of the single elimination portion – even though no player had even mentioned dropping from the elimination portion.
The match was then completed as normal.

I was not on staff, but witnessed this occur. I feel like this falls square into bribery territory. Am I incorrect in this? I do not understand how this could be anything except bribery.

I did read through the other Bribery/Wagering thread, but felt this was different enough to warrant a seperate topic.

I would agree that this is textbook Bribery/Collusion territory. The
barometer for this is typically that if the concession and the prizes are
tied together in any way then it is bad news bears. Anthony has offered
something in exchange for the concession, and without further “you had to
be there” information I would say the individual should have been DQ'd on
the spot.

This was actually all fine until the player said he was joking, at which
point he was probably lying to a judge.

If these players were actually the last two in the tournament, they were
using the normal (incorrect) language associated with discussion of one
player dropping in the final elimination round of the tournament. Even
though they weren't using the words “drop,” this is basically what was
happening.

Check out MTR 5.2, second paragraph.

I understand that this paragraph allows for this type of conversation. But
it is very contingent on using the correct language. The language used is
far out of scope to apply the drop clause for last round of elimination, I
think. But I do agree that it went from straight bribery to lying to a
judge with the joking line.

It might be helpful to review this thread: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/2630/

Essentially, the question is whether there is value in punishing players heavy-handedly for not being aware of the correct terminology to use when discussing an otherwise legal “win by drop” prize split.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

This was actually all fine until the player said he was joking, at which
point he was probably lying to a judge.

saying i will give you all my boosters if you concede is ok?

“Very contingent on using the correct language?” Humbug.

Bribery rules aren't about getting players to engage in clever word games.
You are explicitly allowed to bargain with your opponent using all the
prize on the line in the final elimination round. That is exactly what is
happening here.

Are you really going to DQ a player because he doesn't understand the
distinction between conceding to his opponent and dropping? Especially when
you are going to be entering the result correctly anyway? I'm sure as heck
not.

This sounds like the sort of situation, I'd ask the player to step away from the table and give him a verbal smack upside the head, then ask, “Would you like to try that again, properly this time?”

Also, assuming this doesn't result in a DQ, when we returned to the table, I would be sure to explain to all the players watching exactly what's going on. Explain to them why this is allowed by the rules, and that it's only not a DQ because it's the final round. I don't want any observers getting the wrong idea.

I'd also reiterate my usual caution, “If at any time you think you might like to offer your opponent any sort of split, please call a judge over and ask to speak with us away from the table. We'll walk you through it. We're here to help.”

Originally posted by Josh McCurley:

…since it occurred right before the final match of the single elimination portion – even though no player had even mentioned dropping from the elimination portion.
The match was then completed as normal.

I am having trouble understanding this. Are you saying that this is after the semifinals and before the finals of the event? If so, then it seems clear that one person will just drop and get the prize. There is no difference in the offer, unless the player was specifically asking for the win/PWPs, etc. Players don't always use the right terms and we need to educate and figure out what they want.

(If this wasn't the finals, please clarify)

This was right after the semifinals, right before the finals.

What I'm not understanding is why it seems acceptable to say “If you concede, I'll give you the booster packs” in the finals, but not any other portion of the event. I understand that players don't always use the correct verbiage, but any event I've ever judged the players have asked the HJ how to achieve the result they want without getting DQ'd for bribery.

I just don't understand how the statement above is 100% considered bribery at every other round of an event, except the last one. Why does the bribery portion of the IPG not apply in the finals of an event?

2 reasons:
1) There is not a match played, because one player drops.
2) It doesn't impact any other players in the event (since there aren't any other left)

Edited Shawn Doherty (May 7, 2013 04:06:22 PM)

Shawn, I actually have a question related to your comment about PWP.

If a player in the finals says something like “if you concede to me, you
can have all the packs” we are fine, but does it actually become a problem
if he follows that up with “I need the PWP?”

If I'm sitting at a finals match and somebody says this, my impulse is to
simply correct the player: “You may negotiate for one of you to drop, but
nobody is getting any PWP if that happens, since no match will be played.”
It sounds like the “correct” thing to do would be to DQ the player, but it
seems like the potential for advantage or damage to the tournament at that
point is extremely small. And the error is based on a lack of knowledge
about the subtleties of the MTR, not on the player doing something that is
fundamentally and grossly wrong at this point in the event.

(Usually I bypass this problem by briefing the players before they start to
negotiate, but I can certainly imagine myself forgetting to do so.)

Really no one gets PWPs?

I thought that the player who does not drop will receive bye in the final.
And PWPs are awarded for byes as well as for wins.


2013/5/7 Joshua Feingold <forum-4109-8b1f@apps.magicjudges.org>