Hello

In the Semifinal of a GPT four players aproach the Head Judge and ask if is possible to split the boosters and a player that travel to the GPT get the byes.
They indicate that they've talked about this and if is possible they want to do it.

It is causal of desqualification?

Thanks.

Unless the player they are recommending receive the byes offered them something in exchange for this split, then no.

As an added precaution, you could isolate each player and ask them if they are sure they are ok with the split, as you can only split at that stage if all players agree to the split.

Jackson, MTR5.2 states:
“Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only
cash 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.”

So, in this case you have byes at the stake, not only packs, so there might
be no split available
El 10 ene. 2016 08:39, “Jackson Moore” <

Hi!

I think this: (sorry for my English)

Player in a single-elmination rounds can 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. (MTR 5.2)

So, these players can concede to a player if we are paired against him, and otherwise the worse rank concedes to best rank player, so they don’t have to play top 8, but this isn’t a SPLIT, its is a “Way to Concede”. (You cant drop all top 8 for the event if you have non-transferable prizes, you need to have a winner!)

For me, this is “not-DQ” because the players share prizes before the match without exchange for any game or match result. The player say “get” not “give” for me its not Bribery, because no one is in a position to give him those byes - WOTC awards it to the person who was the properly determined winner of the event.

Follow the next discussions

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/23459/
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/20090/
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/8974/?page=1#post-55099

bye =)

DHM

Edited Diego Antonio Hernández Meruane (Jan. 10, 2016 10:22:39 AM)

I thinks that the players can't split the prize for the reasons that says Julio and the division of prizes cannot be made in exchange for a result. (in this case multiple concessions for a player win a byes)

As Diego says the players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received, as long as sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. (the situation that I present is exchange for a result)

But my question is other.

the intention the players have is to split the boosters and that the player who travel to the GPT get the byes and in case of be legal do it. (the players dont know if is legal or not) and ask that to a judge
¿It is causal of disqualification for bribery and wagering?

Edited Jose Miño (Jan. 11, 2016 04:06:28 PM)

In my opinion this is not a DQ. The players are asking for a split that they can't do the way they are proposing (because there are prizes other than product/cash), but they have not offered each other incentives to influence match results, so it's not bribery.
Of course there is a legal way to do it, by first agreeing to split (the 1-on-1 ‘we will share our winnings regardless of the outcome of the match’ type of split, not the ‘we want to end the tournament and leave now’ type of split) with each of their opponents, and then conceding until the right player has the byes. But now that they've already talked about the split and who gets the byes, it's hard for me to believe that the split and the concessions would not be influenced by each other, and it could become bribery if they try to do it this way now.
And since uncle Scott has made it clear that we (judges/TOs) should not facilitate these kinds of grey area splits, I think the only answer that's left is ‘no, you can’t do that, please sit down for your match'.

Originally posted by Anniek Van der Peijl:

And since uncle Scott has made it clear that we (judges/TOs) should not facilitate these kinds of grey area splits, I think the only answer that's left is ‘no, you can’t do that, please sit down for your match'.

I understated uncle Scott that we should not help players figuring out that kind of split but if they came with one, just let them do it, as long as there are no external cash involved.

edit: ref. link to previous discussion: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/23459/

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (Jan. 11, 2016 04:05:23 AM)

I think that they shouldn't be disqualified for asking wether doing
something is legal or not. We encourage players to call for a judge when
they have any doubts, so disqualifying them just because they asked
something doesn't seem to be right.
El 11 ene. 2016 04:31, “Jose Miño” <forum-23835-5a0f@apps.magicjudges.org>
escribió:

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

I think that they shouldn't be disqualified for asking wether doing
something is legal or not. We encourage players to call for a judge when
they have any doubts, so disqualifying them just because they asked
something doesn't seem to be right.
El 11 ene. 2016 04:31, “Jose Miño” <forum-23835-5a0f@apps.magicjudges.org>
escribió:

In this light, if a player calls you over to his table and asks if it would be legal to give his opponent all his boosters in return for conceding the match, would you have the same thoughts?

At that point, I would say “it depends”.
If he is asking me aside the table, where the opponent cannot hear, I would
be fine with that.
If he is asking where the opponent could hear and act upon that, I would
consider IDaW.
El 11 ene. 2016 09:16, “Jona Bemindt” <forum-23835-5a0f@apps.magicjudges.org>
escribió:

I was initially going to say that this looked kosher, but after reading more of this thread, it looks more like IDaW to me. Which is a stance I'm not sure I'm comfortable taking, but rules are rules.

A question I think is somewhat interesting (perhaps it's not interesting to anyone but me): Consider this situation, with a slight modification, as follows. There are 8 players in a Top 8, say A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. The conversation proceeds as follows:

A: “You know, I kind of just want to go home, I don't care about the byes, who wants to split?”
Other players: “Yeah, sounds fine. Judge, can we split like this?”
Judge: “Sorry guys, you can't, because someone has to win the event to get the byes.”
D: “Well, I might go to the GP, does anyone care if I take the byes?”
Other players: “Not really, go nuts.”

Now in this case, it seems to me that the players have agreed to split the non-bye prizes without any knowledge that they would have to do this in a way that influenced reported match results. Therefore I would have trouble enforcing that they are exchanging prizes for match results, as the discussion of a split was not accompanied by any discussion of match results, at least it appears as such to me (this is one of the tests for IDaW). However, the execution of such a plan would necessarily require a procedure closely resembling IDaW. Is this IDaW, and at what point did the situation go from becoming innocent discussion of splitting prizes, with the players unaware that their proposed split would not work, to an infraction that would have them all DQ'd?

Side question somewhat related to this topic: We have a rule for IDs where players can choose to intentionally draw a match without playing. From a judge standpoint, this has to do with tournament logistics: while we can force players to play, we can't force players to try to win. We can force the players to sit at the table and simply play “draw go” with one another for 50 minutes + 5 extra turns if we wanted to, but it was decided at some point that that's probably not a good idea. From a player's perspective, IDing is good because if you want to relax after a long day of playing you get to do that, or you can go get food, or whatnot. From a TO's perspective, IDing is good because they get to close their shop without worrying about their 6-round tournament that has had technical issues and is now 2 hours behind schedule.

My question is, why is the philosophy different between IDing and prize splitting? I seem to recall this being explained when the prize split rules were changed way back when but I can't recall the answer, and I'd be interested to hear it. I'm sure there's a very good reason for doing so, and I'm sure at some point I'm going to be asked this question by a player and I'd like to be equipped with an answer other than “the rules say so, now do it”.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

why is the philosophy different between IDing and prize splitting

IDs don't violate gambling laws; Improperly Determining a Winner might, at least in some jurisdictions. We really don't want Magic to be seen as game of chance, and thus disallowed, in any community - it's why we have to be so firm with rolling a die, bribery, etc.

d:^D