Edited Lyle Waldman (July 25, 2017 10:35:23 AM)
Edited Josh Stansfield (July 25, 2017 03:26:39 PM)
Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:
Thanks for the opinions (and keep em coming!). For some additional context, there was also a prize split in this situation, but we were very clear that the prize split was being resolved separately from the concession. The general idea was:
Player A: Would you like to prize split?
Player B: Y/N
Player A: I would like the pro point, would you mind conceding?
Player B: Y/N
Does that change any of your answers? When talking to the L3, my understanding was that the added layer of the prize split caused some issues for him, just wondering if this is a larger problem I should be aware of.
Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:
Player A: Would you like to prize split?
Player B: Y/N
Player A: I would like the pro point, would you mind conceding?
Player B: Y/N
Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:
Player A: Would you like to prize split, so that loser gets all the prize?
Player B: (thinks player A wants to concede in exchange for prize) Sure!
Player A: Fine, let's play.
Player B: …
Originally posted by Jake Eakle:
Wait, are prize split offers somehow binding? I don't see anything in the MTR about this, and I don't see how a judge/TO could enforce it.
Originally posted by Jake Eakle:Only as a verbal promise between two individuals; as you surmised, they are not something that judges or TOs should try to enforce.
are prize split offers somehow binding?
Replies have been disabled because this topic is closed.