Player A lends player B a deck for a FNM event. Player B says that for lending the deck, he will concede if he gets matched up against player A. You overhear this conversation before the tournament starts. What is the best course of action and does the situation change if player A proposes the concede deal?

Edited Robert Kuusk (Nov. 20, 2014 09:34:44 AM)

In the first instance, where the player borrowing the deck just offers to concede without any prompting, I'm ok with that. However I might say to the players that (1) if people see/hear about it, then they may think that bribery has occurred, and you don't want to accidentally get a reputation; and that (2) it may start giving the impression that this behaviour is what is supposed to happen when you borrow a deck, which may end up getting someone else DQed in the future when they demand a concession because they loaned out a deck.

In short I would allow it, but I'd attempt to discourage it. Plus - FNM is about fun. There's so little on the line that the bragging rights of defeating the person you borrowed the deck from have to outweigh a booster or two :p


In the situation where Player A demands the concession in exchange for the deck (and this is before the event starts), then I'd step in and tell him he is very close to getting in trouble. The only reason he's not immediately in trouble is that the event hasn't started yet. Depending on how busy I am and the event is, I might choose to observe the two players if they get paired. If anything suspicious happens then I'll have questions.

In the first scenario, I would warn them against that course of action, explaining how suspicious it would look to other players. It's always best to avoid awkward situations when possible. They are walking a fine line when it comes to both actual bribery, and the perception of it. If they decide to go ahead with this plan, that's fine, but I'll make sure they have full knowledge of how it looks.

In the situation where A demands the concession, I'd step in and explain why we immediately disqualify players for saying things like that. I'd tell him he isn't DQ'd, because the event hasn't yet started, but that he needs to be very careful about saying things like that in the future.

If, later on, they end up paired together, and B concedes to A, believe me, I will be asking a lot of questions.

This is very uncomfortable, but it's also the kind of thing that I see happening with some regularity. I think bribery/concessions issues at Regular REL are very interesting, because they're not very intuitive to players. They're very severe penalties, and players who never play Competitive or higher REL in their lives may not understand why. They understand why, at an event where money is on the line, it could be such a serious problem (or Serious Problem), but they come from the kitchen table where that kind of deal-making and deck-swapping happens all the time.

They understand why they can't cheat, but this isn't cheating to them. I am very inclined to lenience in these situations, explaining to players what they did wrong and why it was wrong. This is definitely a situation where judgment is required– if it's a couple of kids playing their kitchen table brews, I'm more likely to assume innocent intent than if it's a couple of regulars.

For other infractions, knowing that you do something wrong is a requirement for it to be a Serious Problem, we only DQ if the player is aware he or she did something Very Bad. However, for infractions such as Bribery, Wagering and Random Determination of a Winner, there is no such prerequisite. Please do not deviate from the rules, DQ players who engage in such actions, even if they didn't know it was illegal. It has severe legal consequences if we tolerate bribery situations like these…

Re-reading the JAR, I'm convinced that breaking rules and lying (both fall under Cheating) are the only Serious Problems that require knowledge that they're bad. Anything else needs to be DQ'd simply on the basis that it occurred.

Originally posted by Sam Barrows:

They understand why they can't cheat, but this isn't cheating to them. I am very inclined to lenience in these situations, explaining to players what they did wrong and why it was wrong. This is definitely a situation where judgment is required– if it's a couple of kids playing their kitchen table brews, I'm more likely to assume innocent intent than if it's a couple of regulars.

The focus should be education and maintaining event integrity, not leniency. “Innocent” and “Guilty” as characteristic of the player isn't something I'd recommend factoring into your decision. There are actions that we cannot tolerate. Your judgement is in determining whether their actions have reached the threshold of the rules. This is mostly objective, not subjective. If yes, then you have a course of action to DQ them and afterward explain what is and is not acceptable.

The immediate effect is they don't get to play in that event anymore. The investigations committee will implement the “leniency” afterwards by taking into consideration your feelings that they're knew and didn't know any better. If you feel strongly, put that in your Investigation report.

Edited Evan Cherry (Dec. 9, 2014 10:42:02 PM)

Case in point, the first line of “Serious Problems”:

Certain actions will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

While you must DQ for bribery, IDaW, etc., even if they are unaware that it is a problem, it's still possible to be “lenient”. You have to DQ them from the event, but that doesn't mean you have to throw them out of the venue or anything like that. If it's just a couple of kids who didn't know better, DQ them, but explain why clearly, and try to find something else for them to do, even if it's just hanging around and playing games against players who have finished their round. You could also talk to the TO about perhaps refunding their entry fee (many TOs will be happy to do this in a case like this, as it can easily be what makes the difference in whetehr these kids become regulars at the events or not).

Disqualification for Bribery has to happen, but it doesn't have to be a bad customer service experience.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Dec. 10, 2014 10:09:56 AM)

Very well said, James.

Edited Jona Bemindt (Dec. 10, 2014 11:11:17 AM)

Oh, yes, customer service is still our number 1 priority in Regular events, especially when it comes to young kids and/or new players. I really like the idea of taking care of them, askinf the TO to help out and maybe refund their money or let them play for free next week, but I had the impression that Sam was talking about leniency in applying the JAR, and that should never be the case. But customer service, always extremely important! Take your time to explain about what a DQ means and make sure they understand and accept.