We have the following situation:
Last round of pre-release, two players - Annie and Nathan have 9 points, all other players have 6 points or less.
Tournament runs without Top-8, prizes are awarded based on final standings.
ver.1 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID and split the prizes? Nathan accepts her offer.
ver.2 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID and split the prizes? Nathan refuses her offer. A judge hears this talk.
ver.3 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID? Nathan accepts her offer. Annie then asks if he wants to split, and he accepts as well.

Please share your thoughts. My thoughts 1 - DQ both for bribery. 2 - DQ Annie only. 3 - everything is completely legal.

ver 4. - Nathan says to Annie: “would you like to ID”? Annie accepts his offer. Nathan then asks if she wants to split, and she says “no, thanks, my standings are better!”. Nathan cries.
ver 5. - Annie says to Nathan: “would you like to split the prizes”? Nathan accepts her offer first and then offers an ID. Passing by judge applauds.

Ver.2 Nathan would receive the same penalty as Annie if he did not call the judge due to this line from the MTR Unless the player receiving such an offer calls for a judge
immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner

ver.6 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID? Nathan accepts her offer. Annie then asks if he wants to split, and he refuses. Then Annie says, okay no ID then.

The general rule of thumb here is to always offer the prize split and the match results in two different statement and only after the first one has been agreed to (Ver 5 is the best way). There is still a ways to go in terms of player education ESPECIALLY at a pre-release where you get a very much more casual crowd than any other regular REL event. if your crowd is mostly formed of newcomers and not so rules knowledgeable people, it may be worthwhile to make a quick announcement in the beginning of the event as to what is the correct way to offer prize splits so everyone is happy.

Maxime has it right; what we actually need is this:

Version 0 (happens before any of the others) - Judge announcement about not rolling dice, revealing cards from library, offering bribes, etc. Also, “if you want to discuss an outcome or prize split, ask a judge before you say something unfortunate.”

d:^D

And I'll go even one step before (version -1?): talk with the tournament organizer on how to have a point based prizing, so that draws always bring the average of a win and a loss, reducing vastly any incentive for Bribery.
You will still have the occasional down-pair match to keep an eye on, but delivering the personalized message suggested by Scott at their table will be far more efficient than a generic announcement.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

And I'll go even one step before (version -1?): talk with the tournament organizer on how to have a point based prizing, so that draws always bring the average of a win and a loss, reducing vastly any incentive for Bribery.
You will still have the occasional down-pair match to keep an eye on, but delivering the personalized message suggested by Scott at their table will be far more efficient than a generic announcement.

- Emilien

For reference (look for “Bribery at PRs” paragraph):

https://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2015/03/26/pr-dtk-a-judge-report-from-a-player/

Originally posted by Pavel Zinoviev:

ver.6 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID? Nathan accepts her offer. Annie then asks if he wants to split, and he refuses. Then Annie says, okay no ID then.

I am inclined to DQ Annie in this situation. The fact that the ID was withdrawn after Nathan refused to split proves that the initial offer of an ID was in fact contingent on a split (it just wan't explicitly stated). Essentially, by taking back the ID, Annie has admitted that she was making a contingent offer, which is prohibited. (Same if the initial accepted offer had been the split, withdrawn after the subsequent ID had been refused).

I don't think it's clear cut though. The tournament documents prohibit “offering an incentive” (per IPG 4.4) to influence a match result, as well as determining a result “in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive” (MTR 5.2). On one hand, I think it is certainly arguable that Nathan's decision to split would be “influenced by” Annie's ID offer once he realized it was off the table if he refused to split. On the other hand, at the time the incentive was offered, it was not known to be an incentive, and the language of “in exchange for” implies a level of contemporaneity which does not support a ruling of Bribery in an ex post facto manner.

On the whole, I think tournament integrity is better served with a DQ here, coupled with the good advice already mentioned of advising players ahead of time to steer well clear of this territory altogether (or get a judge involved if absolutely necessary).

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Originally posted by Pavel Zinoviev:

ver.6 - Annie says to Nathan, would you like to ID? Nathan accepts her offer. Annie then asks if he wants to split, and he refuses. Then Annie says, okay no ID then.

I am inclined to DQ Annie in this situation. The fact that the ID was withdrawn after Nathan refused to split proves that the initial offer of an ID was in fact contingent on a split (it just wan't explicitly stated). Essentially, by taking back the ID, Annie has admitted that she was making a contingent offer, which is prohibited. (Same if the initial accepted offer had been the split, withdrawn after the subsequent ID had been refused).

I don't think it's clear cut though. The tournament documents prohibit “offering an incentive” (per IPG 4.4) to influence a match result, as well as determining a result “in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive” (MTR 5.2). On one hand, I think it is certainly arguable that Nathan's decision to split would be “influenced by” Annie's ID offer once he realized it was off the table if he refused to split. On the other hand, at the time the incentive was offered, it was not known to be an incentive, and the language of “in exchange for” implies a level of contemporaneity which does not support a ruling of Bribery in an ex post facto manner.

On the whole, I think tournament integrity is better served with a DQ here, coupled with the good advice already mentioned of advising players ahead of time to steer well clear of this territory altogether (or get a judge involved if absolutely necessary).

Yes thats correct. I wonder if we should punish Nathan as well if he didnt call the judge and started playing after that.