This has happened around my local area quite a bit in the past, and IMO it falls into a super gray zone for our judgment. Do you consider the following phrase as an offering when it comes with combination of concession?

“We'll talk about the prize later.”
or
“Let's discuss about the prize later.”

I've asked few of local judges here, and most of us are unsure about this. Ideally, we would like to follow and hear their discussion later on, but most of the time it's logistically impossible to do in the middle of the event. So I'd like to hear more opinions from you all.

Thank you very much for your opinion in advance.

Happens quite a bit here. I think there is very little we can do.

However I will
- Educate the 2 players that although I am unable to catch them for Improperly Determining a Winner, this is a wrong thing to do because it makes the tournament unfair for the other players due to tiebreakers etc etc
- Post a FJ or myself outside of the venue where they might potentially discuss the prize
- Announce at the start of tournament that these kind of discussions are unhealthy for the tournament and that we should refrain from doing so

Ultimately it is a lot about education, with very little we can do but we try our best to prevent it from happening

MTR 5.2: “The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive, nor may any in-game decision be influenced in this manner. Making such an offer is prohibited.”

A phrase such as you mention would only be acceptable to me AFTER a concession has already been given. If it is uttered before a concession happens, then this is an offer of an (unspecified) prize that will most definitely influence the decision to concede.

For me, it's still grey zone in rules. Could someone clarify for me if the following situations are ruled properly?

—I want all packs.
—OK.
—I concede./ Let's play for points.
Both cases are infractions, although it wasn't mentioned, that player B would or wouldn't concede for prizes

—I concede.
—OK.
—I want all packs.
—OK./ Hehe, no.
Both cases a legal, due to the fact that conceding itself is legal, and handling prizes after event is not the thing MTR/IPG care about.

—Want to concede?
—OK.
—Take all packs.
Same as above.

—Let's split prizes.
—OK.
—I concede./ Let's play./ Let's ID.
Legal, because splitting prizes is ok.

Obviously, any phrase with clear intentions for game outcome AND handling prizes is illegal (probably, except for «Let's ID and split»).

If I understand this correctly, the only way for this to become bribery is if you link a prize split to a match outcome. If one of the two is agreed upon independent of the other, it is not bribery.

Originally posted by Andrey Fomichev:

I want all packs.
—OK.
—I concede./ Let's play for points.
Both cases are infractions, although it wasn't mentioned, that player B would or wouldn't concede for prizes

I don't agree that this is an infraction. The prize split was agreed upon and no match results were offered as incentive.

The example in the original post, could be construed as a bribe, if players were discussing a potential concession or ID. However, if this was not linked to the match outcome, it would not be a bribe, either, because the match result had already been determined independently of a prize split, or if the players simply agree to split the prizes a certain way, and then still want to play the match.

What else can “I want all packs” mean in this context than “let me have them and I'll concede” ?

That's a very good point, Johanna. I was more working on a theoretical point. In practise, in any of those cases, I would try to make sure I fully understood a player's intent and base my rulings on that.

Originally posted by Johanna Virtanen:

What else can “I want all packs” mean in this context than “let me have them and I'll concede” ?

I was under the impression that this is fine: https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/36955/?page=2#post-229832

Dominik, the thread you linked to is specifically about the final single
elimination round, which is an exception carved out in the MTR. Outside of
that exception (for example, in any other round, or even in the last round
of a Swiss event), “let me have X and I'll concede” is definitely Bribery.

So it's pretty specific situation, in which conditions leading to legal situation are
1) Single elimination
2) Final of it (i.e., match leading to absolutely certain prizes for two absolutely certain players)
3) Initial offer doesn't determine match outcome by prize split but rather prize split by match outcome
?

The third condition is pretty defining, because it still asserting that “let me have X and I'll concede” is Bribery even in Elim.Finals

I'm not sure where you're getting that third point from. In the final single-elimination round of a tournament, players can agree to divide tournament prizes however they wish as long as one player at each table drops as part of the agreement. There's no distinction between “match outcome by prize split but rather prize split by match outcome” at all.

In the finals of a PPTQ, it is legal to come to an agreement where player A gets all the packs, and agrees to concede, giving B the invite. Johanna's response - and everything else in this thread up until Dominik's and my posts, was /not/ about the final single-elimination round, because the exception in the MTR makes this whole conversation moot in the final single-elimination round.

“Let's talk about the prizes later” is “you will get a reward”. That, combined with a result sounds like bribery to me.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Dominik, the thread you linked to is specifically about the final single
elimination round, which is an exception carved out in the MTR. Outside of
that exception (for example, in any other round, or even in the last round
of a Swiss event), “let me have X and I'll concede” is definitely Bribery.

I don't believe you're reading my point correctly. The relevant part of that discussion and this one is whether “I want all packs.” or “Looser gets all the boosters.” implies the offer. According to Scott's statement there (to the best of my understanding), it does not.

Originally posted by Shanin Paisalachpong:

Do you consider the following phrase as an offering when it comes with combination of concession?

“We'll talk about the prize later.”

There is a direct connection made between the concession and the prize arrangement (whatever it might end up being), which is bribery.
example 1:
“I'll concede and we'll talk about the prize later”.

I would recommend remediating to this situation in your area at the earliest by discussing it with your local stores/TO and maybe run a campaign to let the players know this is not an ok behavior.
Social medial and pre-tournament announcements could do wonders.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Outside of
that exception (for example, in any other round, or even in the last round
of a Swiss event), “let me have X and I'll concede” is definitely Bribery.

Just to clarify, your example will always be Bribery - at any stage of any event. Correct?

Dominik, “loser gets all packs” and “I get all packs” are completely different statements. One of them is a symmetric offer that either player could choose to take, one of them is clearly an offer to concede.