Andrew is paired against Nicholas at FNM. Steve has a friendly rivalry with Nicholas and tells Alex “hey, make sure you win and I’ll buy you a beer”.

Has Steve committed USC Bribery & Wagering?

(Also the question isn’t intended to be about alcohol, feel free to substitute a booster, or a coffee or whatever.)

Hi,

For me, this is borderline.

First, this is not wagering. If Andrew wins the match he may gain something extra from Steve. However, if Andrew does not win, he does not lose anything (for example buying a beer to Steve).

Second, we need to determine whether this is bribery. As I see the situation, Steve's offer may have influence on Andrew's decisions about that match result only in case that Nicholas tries to negotiate the match result with Andrew. For example if the match would be about to end as draw and Nicholas really needed the match points while Andrew would not care - Andrew would be incentivized to not concede to Nicholas.

However, Andrew wants to win the match anyway by default and that offer of extra reward for the win is not influencing the match result.

Personally, I would investigate a bit to learn the motives and I would also keep the match under my eye. I would inform the guys about the message which could be sent out by such offers and I would suggest that they do not say such or similar things in the future. It can easily shift into something DQ-able and also such rivarly among players may easily turn into some toxic situations for the whole local community.

I think I'd be wary of this because whilst it doesn't affect that match if one of them is clearly winning, if the match comes close to the clock Andrew is now incentivised to slow down play to try and force a draw. I'm not sure the act itself could be considered bribery because Andrew can't guarantee to win unlike if it was an offer to lose, but I think the offer has to potential to lead to situations like stalling or other unwanted behaviours.

I wouldn't be DQing Steve in this instance and I'd keep a close eye on the match between Andrew and Nicholas for the aforementioned unwanted behaviours as a result of it, but I would definitely be having this conversation with Steve to explain why I wouldn't want to see a similar offer made again in the LGS.

Edited Emma Shrimpton (March 21, 2018 03:50:27 PM)

This is very clearly not Bribery. Nothing was offered in exchange for a match result, which is a requirement for Bribery.



This is however, Wagering. It's unfortunate, but even a friendly bet between two people who know each other falls under the infraction. It doesn't matter what the wager is, and it doesn't have to affect both players equally.

Originally posted by IPG:

Wagering occurs when a player or spectator at a tournament places or offers to place a bet on the outcome of a tournament, match or any portion of a tournament or match. The wager does not need to be monetary, nor is it relevant if a player is not betting on his or her own match.

Closed pending an official response.

Per the OED (I think that's what Google gave me), “wager” is another term for “bet”, and the first definition for “bet” is:

risk something, usually a sum of money, against someone else's on the basis of the outcome of a future event, such as the result of a race or game

While the material part of the bet doesn't have to be equal, the key concept is two (or more) people risking something they value based on that future outcome.

In the original scenario, only one player is risking anything, and thus fails the basic definition of “wager” (or “bet”).

d:^D

From that perspective, "I bet you this // that I will win!“ is fine as long as it's one sided? If the opponent calls a judge, has the player actually done anything wrong yet? They've not proposed their opponent put anything into the pot.

If the opponent says ”Deal!" and puts in a // of their own, this is now wagering. Is our first player at all in the wrong if they immediately go “JUDGE! MY OPPONENT IS TRYING TO WAGER WITH ME!”?

I think we can agree there is a line where we can be certain they are both wagering with one-another and that's fine.

While these might be what-ifs, the first part especially is exactly the kind of thing that players get disqualified for.

I have also seen situations to the tune of “If I lose, I'm not giving you a lift home” to someone they drove with, though I suppose that then falls into the territory of Bribery as it implies “Lose to me, or I won't give you the promised lift home”; an incentive for a specific match outcome that can be determined through means other than playing a game of magic. The reason I word it that way is that the scenario presented in the OP is an inventive for a particular march outcome, however the only way of determining it (for the offered player) is to play a game of magic.

The stance presented in this thread seems to really muddy the waters about phrasing and wording in ‘Bribery & Wagering’-esque scenarios.

I think the specifics are important here. Where a player telling their opponent “if you beat me, I'm not giving you a ride home” should constitute bribery (offering an incentive to obtain a particular match result), a spectator saying to one of the players “if you win, I'm not giving you a ride home” (perhaps because the spectator plans to leave after the end of the current round) need not be bribery.

Similarly, saying “I bet you…” over the outcome of a match implies a reciprocal offer (which fits Scott's definition of “bet”) and would constitute wagering. A spectator saying, “I'll give you…” doesn't suggest or imply that reciprocity, and so would not be a wager (and need not be a bribe, since we expect players already want to win).

Basically, it isn't wagering if it's a one-sided offer (though it may be bribery) and it probably isn't bribery to offer a player an (additional) incentive to win their match (though it may be wagering if the offer is a reciprocal offer).

Edited Andrew Keeler (March 22, 2018 08:17:33 PM)

I think this is like “primas” in football…
Bets, bribery, and lot of things was forbidden… but a non-player team is allowed to prime a direct oponent.
A and B will play.
C want B wins to denny points to A, and climb him in tablepoint, to avoid drop in table.
C is allowed to tell B: “ey! win, please! If you win, I give you *this*”

B want to win even if C does nothing.
C only raise the “spirit” of B.

Where is the matter?