Hello everyone,

This is my first post here and the issue might have been addressed already. Here are the facts: It was in the last round of the PPTQ Ixalan that the two finalists sat at their table. At that particular moment I was clearing the rest of the Top 4 results, so by the time I approached them they had already initiated the preliminary discussion regarding the Invitation and the prize split.

I did not intervene at the time, as the discussion seemed to be going smoothly, within the rules and no one addressed to me for that matter. When asked, player A replied that he wasn’t going to use that potential PTQ invitation, most likely. As was expected, his opponent asked if, in this case, he could give him the ‘invite’ and they could play for the sake of the prizes. Player A responded to that with the phrase “What am I gaining for the invite?” or “What am I gaining for it?”.

At that point, I stopped the players from interacting. I wanted to make sure of his intentions and leave the player a chance to explain himself as to what he really meant. During our investigation, player A admitted that he thought he could ask for some additional reward, since his opponent would get the invite.

My question is: was Player A within his rights, supposing he was referring to items in the prize pool? Would you DQ the player after all, according to his stated question?

Does MTR 5.2 Exception apply in this case?
“Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. 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.”

Does this mean players in the finals are free to haggle in exchange for a concession as long as they negotiate items in the prize pool? If this, indeed, is what the ‘exception’ refers to, then it could have been uttered in a more clear way in the MTR? e.g. “As an exception, players are allowed to offer a concession in the finals in exchange of prizes, as long as their offer refers to items in the prize pool”

In my view upon interpreting this clause, is that the real meaning of the “exception” is not to allow players to negotiate in exchange of one of them dropping. I thought that the exception just allows a player to drop (in exception from the first clause in MTR 5.2, where prize share doesn't end in dropping). This makes sense, in the last round of the tournament, if an agreement on the prizes is reached someone has to drop for everyone to go home. But who is dropping shouldn't be in conjunction with who is getting what.

However, this doesn't seem to be the consensus here.

Edited Elias Chountalas (July 17, 2017 11:40:06 PM)

The last statement referring to someone dropping is to clarify that there
is not a concession in the match, but instead someone is dropping.
If someone doesn't want the invite, they can say “How about I get all the
prize for 1st and 2nd place and you get the invite?” This person will need
to drop (not concede) for this result to be allowed, but they don't need to
state that they are dropping (or not) in the discussion.
As always, the HJ should be part of all of these discussions, so that
players know what they can and cannot offer.

Finalists can agree to split the prize as they wish, even in exchange for the win.

The reasoning is:
- they cannot damage anyone in the tournament. They are the last two players left.
- they cannot damage anyone outside the tournament. As long as the win is “by drop”, no planeswalker points are gained, so the winner doesn't overcome anyone in the world ranking.

So, asking your opponent “I will drop in exchange for all the boosters” is OK.

Be wary that players don't start discussing about prizes outside the tournament ones:
- “I will drop in exchange for the foil Emrakul you get at RPTQ” is DQ-worthy.
- “If you let me win, I won't need to qualify anymore, and I will borrow you my deck for the remainder of the season” is also a no-no.

In your shoes, I would have stepped in to tell players they can do what they want with the 1st and 2nd prize, but absolutely do not involve anything else.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

The reasoning is:
- they cannot damage anyone in the tournament. They are the last two players left.
- they cannot damage anyone outside the tournament. As long as the win is “by drop”, no planeswalker points are gained, so the winner doesn't overcome anyone in the world ranking.

I dont stand with this reasoning.
Is it ok for you if one of the two finalist teams of the Champions League/Superbowl/whatever tournament just doesnt play because the other team was like “hey, you get the TV money if you don't”.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

I dont stand with this reasoning.
Is it ok for you if one of the two finalist teams of the Champions League/Superbowl/whatever tournament just doesnt play because the other team was like “hey, you get the TV money if you don't”.

I don't think that this logic is particularly helpful here. Magic is different from other sports and games in that players always have the option to concede or ID a match, and there are good reasons for this. Just because a particular policy would make for poor television in another sport doesn't mean that therefore we should forbid Magic players from doing it.

Ok, then let us stick to magic.
Would you like it if one of the finalists of a Protour drops because he gets alle the pricemoney for 1st+2nd?

Johannes, please let's not go down a very unproductive road here. It's not about what you or I like, not even about what you or I think is fair/optimal/whatever, but it's about what the IPG and MTR allow. Those documents clearly allow a player to drop in the finals, so let's accept that.

I know. And I got told that quite often today.
But rules arent set in stone. We could discuss a change here.

I agree that rules aren't set in stone, but we've had discussions like this frequently, and always with the same outcome. Two main arguments: for the finals of a Superbowl, there are a lot of people involved besides the teams: spectators who bought a ticket, TV stations who planned in broadcasting time, and so on. For the finals of a PPTQ, this simply doesn't hold. Also, it's completely unenforceable to forbid drops, concessions and Intentional Draws. If I can't legally concede but I can mulligan to 0 and then play draw-go until I die, what are you going to do against it?

Please, let's keep it constructive. Elias is doing so by proposing a clarification of the wording of the IPG, as apparently there is some misunderstanding amongst judges. Thanks for bringing this up, Elias!

Finally, my two pieces of advice for people HJ'ing a PPTQ:

1) Be aware of what's legal and what's not. Conceding and prize splitting in the finals of a SE portion are totally fine, as long as only prizes from the current tournament are being split.
2) It's good customer service to explain this to players before they start negotiating. It's a pity to have to DQ someone because they proposed something that they thought was legal. Prevention is better than punishment.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

I know. And I got told that quite often today.
But rules arent set in stone. We could discuss a change here.

While most rules aren't set in stone, and we could suggest improvement, the IPG and MTR are Wizards documents, and the Bribery rules are one of the rules were Wizards legal department have the final say about. They are notoriously very hard to convince to change anything about these rules.
For this reason, I personally think that education and customer service is a better use of our time and energy on that matter.

- Emilien

My problem here, Emilien, is exactly that: while Bribery rules and their relevant philosophy governing the IPG and Mtr are quite specific and generally heavy handed against such behavior, there is a single sentence, with a vague exception, which, I am being told, allows Bribery between the two finalists but the wording doesn't even have the clarity or will to specify that - although this is quite huge in importance. As it is now, I see no specific instructions to ignore an incident of bribery in the finals and I have to stick to the other rules concerning bribery. By simply omitting the part that the concession or dropping from a tournament should not be in conjunction with the players negotiation is not exactly stating loud and clear “ignore all rules about bribery”.

Edited Elias Chountalas (July 18, 2017 07:22:50 PM)

Elias, we aren't ignoring all rules about Bribery. The only “rule” that were alllowed to ignore in the finals of an event is the “agree to share prizes in exchange for a particular match result” sub-set of the “offering an incentive for a match result” rule. It's still improper to offer an outside incentive, or even to say “You can have the Invite (if a PPTQ), and then the winner of the match will get the packs.”

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to this thread, as a few other L3s already provided good answers to the original question(s). However, it's been pointed out that an ‘O’fficial summary might be beneficial, esp. to someone reading this later.

Players in the finals of a PPTQ can negotiate uneven prize splits, such that one player gets the invite and the other player gets all or most of the product; the player who does not get the invite must drop from the event, and the player with the invite is reported as the winner, by drop.

The MTR quote in the original post covers that, but there's also an example, for clarification:

Originally posted by MTR 5.2:

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.

I understand that there's frustration with the Bribery rules; that's not new. As for trying to change them? Well, that effort has been underway for a long time, at least a decade; when it comes to policy as dictated by the legal department, change is slow (at best).

d:^D

Thanks everyone for the insight and Scott for the official summary and clarification. Now, this is a rule I know I will never forget!
I am also in the hopes that this might kindle some productive conversation on optimizing the relevant wording, like Dustin said.

Edited Elias Chountalas (July 20, 2017 07:16:53 AM)

Small point of clarification on Andrew's statement: why would it be improper to say “You'll get the invite, let's play and the winner gets the packs”? All that is is a drop with a match of Magic to determine the final prize split. What about that situation is against policy?

Sent from my iPhone