Welcome judges! This week, we have a particularly challenging scenario to offer up at the GOLD LEVEL! That means that this topic is open to discussion by all judges Level 0, Level 1 and Level 2. You can view the blog post for this scenario at the link below.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=920

Have fun and remember to explain and support your answers.

Houston, We've Got a Bribe - GOLD

Going into the last round of Swiss in a $5k cash tournament run at Competitive REL, you, the Head Judge, send your floor judges out to watch and listen for “unfortunate conversations” that might happen with the players battling to get into the Top 8. As the round is coming to a close, one of your floor judge approaches you with a situation she thinks is Bribery. You pull the players aside and begin an investigation.

Andre says that they sat down for their match, and before Game 1 had begun, Nick asked him if he wanted to do an even prize split. Andre declined because he thought he had a good match up. They played game 1 and game 2, both players taking a game. Andre says Nick then offered the prize split again. He says he took a few seconds to think about it, then said “Sure”. Nick then grabbed the results slip and filled it out as a 2-1 win for Andre. When asked if there had been any discussion about someone conceding, he answers that there was none.

When you question Nick, his story matches up with Andre's story. When asked why he conceded, he answers that he knew Andre would get into the Top 8 with a win. He further explains that his record is 5-2 and Andre's is 5-1-1. He had checked the standings before the round and knew he had no shot at the Top 8 even with a win, while a win would guarantee Andre a spot in the Top 8. He says he wanted to maximize how much cash he would get in the split, and Andre making Top 8 was the best way to do so.

Is there anything wrong with what Andre and Nick have done? If so, what infraction(s) have Andre and/or Nick committed, and what penalties should be awarded?

MTR 5.2

Players are allowed to 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

I may be wrong (although I think it is pretty clear), but this directly says " as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result“. And in my belief, since there was no discussion over the outcome of the match results, there is also no issue with it being filled out 2-1.

This is simply another case of ”watch what you say and imply things, then get away with it." No matter how much I don't like it, those are the rules, and they must be followed. Open and shut case, no infraction.

When investigating for bribery I listen for the magic word “if”. I don't see anything here that would indicate that a concession (from either player) is contingent on splitting the prizes.

If Andre or Nick had grabbed the slip and marked the match result in their own favour, I would be digging a lot deeper, but it seems in this case Nick just snap conceded.

No infraction.

Going by the two players' individual stories about the situation, which in this case match up with one another, neither player asked for nor offered a concession during the discussion of a prize split. Although it does appear shady to concede a match after a prize split was agreed upon, both players obeyed the conditions stated in MTR 5.2 and therefore there is no infraction here.

I don't even think it's shady. Player realizes that win or lose, they
gain nothing from continuing to play the match. In the scenario
presented, he could even lose out on possible prizes by playing -
assuming that they split like agreed!

As others have pointed out, the offer of the split was not contingent
on the concession, so we don't run into bribery territory. I would not
infract here, and I might use this as a launching pad for an
explanation to other players about what is and isn't considered
bribery.

At a store that I've run IQ's at before, the players have been very
uneducated on this fact, and often have questions like “Judge, can I
offer a prize split here, even though we're not in Top 8?” In my mind,
education about what is and is not allowed is key. These two players
appear to understand the situation, but others (such as the person
reporting the bribery) may not.

———-

With that said, a counter argument here is that the MTR *does* call
out that “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.” The case could be made that by prize splitting,
given the current point totals, that Nick was given incentive to
concede - albeit by himself (and Andre's assent).

I don't find this argument compelling, and stick with my initial
statement, but I felt that this point should at least be brought up.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Eric Paré
<forum-7141-b077@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Originally posted by Andrew Rula:

With that said, a counter argument here is that the MTR *does* call
out that “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.” The case could be made that by prize splitting,
given the current point totals, that Nick was given incentive to
concede - albeit by himself (and Andre's assent).

I agree that it is not shady; if we're getting very technical on that sentence, then I would call out that it says "cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive."

No offer=no infraction. A player might be able to incentivize themselves, but they can't make an offer to themselves.

I agree that no infraction has been committed, HOWEVER,
Since there is no Authority figure splitting the prizes for them, the player who got into top8 can simply ‘no sir’ his or her last swiss-round opponent. Since the slip says 2-1, the judges cannot know if they truly split or not, because the paper doesn't lie.

Are there policies in place for prize splitting that isn't an 8way, 4way, or 2way chop?

Being a Level 0, I don't have much experience in this area as at FNM, I just tell people that bribery is a very bad thing and not to do it; however, I do have a question. Obviously, if either player offered the two with an intervening if clause it would be bribery. This situation doesn't appear to fit that bill, so I personally wouldn't call it bribery.

My question is this: Does the fact that the decision to concede comes in response to the split change the scenario?

What if Nick offered the concession so Andre could make Top 8 out of selflessness and Andre offered a split afterwards in a show of gratitude? I've been known to do the former and have seen others do the same for friends and teammates. (Though, I've sadly never been in a position to do the latter.)

I would not consider this scenario to be bribery at all.

Nick is pretty clearly not bribing Andre, since he's the one who is getting
“more” prize than he would without the prize split.

Andre is also pretty clearly not bribing Nick, since Andre has done nothing
other than agree to a prize split. He did not ask Nick to concede, nor did
he imply that he should. It is possible that Andre doesn't know that Nick
cannot make Top 8, or even that he himself is a lock to make it with a win
(X-1-1 is not always a lock).

The wrinkle that Darrin suggests I would also not consider Bribery since
the prize split is being given for gratitude rather than as a condition of
the concession. There is no way the offer of the prize split could
possibly influence the decision to concede when it is done after the fact.

Others have already highlighted the relevant rules as to why this situation
should not be considered bribery, so I will refrain from doing so myself
and will simply agree with what has already been quoted.

I have firsthand experience of being asked for improperly determining a winner, and this doesn't seem like it. Ive had players give me the win because they were dropping the tournament anyways and that sort of seems like whats going on.
However, I'm a little unsure about the prize split to get Andre into the top 8 if Nick knew he had no chance so he could maximize his result. That one doesn't sit right with me. With what seems like no real infraction is being committed here, I would still proceed with caution as this seems like Nick is trying to get something out of Andrew when he knew he had no chance to make it.

Edited Thomas Jensen (Nov. 20, 2013 04:03:13 PM)

As an L1, here's my crack at the question.

At first blush, it doesn't seem like bribery. According to both player's stories, there was no discussion of match results at all, much less discussion of match results in exchange for some incentive.

It is possible that there was such a discussion, which the floor judge didn't hear, and both players are lying about. I think this is probably unlikely, though.

Looking at the situation a bit more deeply, the player changing the results of the match is Nick, and he's also the player making an offer of the even prize split. Is the one connected to the other?

Given that Nick conceded immediately after the offer was accepted, let's assume for the sake of argument that Nick intended to drop, if given the prize split. Even then, though, if this wasn't communicated to Andre, and Andre couldn't be expected to pick it up as an implication, then the offer isn't in exchange for a particular match result.

I would be curious if, while not discussing concessions, the players had discussed their respective standings or chances at top 8 over the course of the match. If both players were acutely aware of both their shots at top 8, does that change the implications of an offer for a prize split? On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable, even in that case, for Andre to assume that Nick just wants a guaranteed prize payout, and will play out the 3rd game.

So, even with the most pessimistic view of the situation, I think this situation is not bribery.

As a side note, as worded, the MTG and IPG seem to only care about a player asking their opponent to concede or draw, in exchange for incentive, not about a player offering to concede in exchange for a desired incentive. I think the general policy is pretty clear that neither is acceptable, though, for preserving tournament integrity.

Edit:

I think the crux of the issue is, whether Andre would expect a concession from Nick, if he agreed to the prize split. Or, conversely, whether Nick expected Andre would expect a concession. I think it's reasonable to assume that Andre did not expect a concession, and that Nick did not attempt to imply one.

Edited Talin Salway (Nov. 20, 2013 05:30:20 PM)

Based on the information given in this scenario, I totally agree with all posters above. I also can't see anything that could qualify as bribery here.

However, an important piece of information is missing here: we weren't at the table at the moment that conversation happened. What did the floor judge notice? What made her think that this situation can be Bribery? Maybe what she noticed contradicts with what the players are telling us?

I'd ask the floor judge about this even before I'd talk to Andre or Nick. Yet, if her story also matched with theirs, still I won't be able to find any infraction here.

I would think this is a kind of Bribery, well a smart one.

The key element is 2nd paragraph.

….. then said “Sure”. Nick then grabbed the results slip and filled it out as a 2-1 win for Andre.

this is what i would do.

Split the players into 2 different places.

I would ask both of them that why did u immediately fill 2-1 as the game is not ended.

For Nick
if he said, i thought he concede, then, Nick would be Infra for Bribery. it is becoz he offer a split and he expected for concede. Becoz learnt from the paragraph, Andre DID not present any kind of messages which showed he would concede at his own will.

If he said, well, i dunno think he would be able to said, i dunno. It's radiculas. so go deeper, and again Infra for Bribery


For Andre, same question.
If he said, i concede becoz i dunno want play and want to max my prize. Then i would ask, the floor judge did not find any of your messages show that you concede intentially. If he said, i did but he failed to notice. He might be guilty if we could not go deeper.

If he said, i duno why Nick do that. Radiculas！ There MUST BE a problem. Go deeper
If he said sth other, i will try to investigate more.

Edited Alex YEUNG (Nov. 21, 2013 02:02:18 AM)

Andre did not concede, Nick did. There was never an incentive offered in return for a concession. Considering the person that offered the split and the person that conceded are the same person (both actions being perfectly fine), we're not looking at a bribery-scenario. I'd still thank the floor judge for bringing it to my attention.

Originally posted by Jona Bemindt:

Thank you for your correction, Jona.

I would try to correct my answer as well.


Nick offer the split prize TWICE.

First time, Nick offered, Andre reject, Game continued.
Second time, Nick offered, Andre accepted, Nick dropped.

Players are allowed to 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.

Normally, there would be three cases
1) Nick won, Andre Lost
2) Andre won, Nick Lost
3) Draw

in both 1 and 3, the prizes of TWO players would be identical, which means splitting is meaningless.
The only scenario for a better prize is Andre won the match.

Obviously, Nick knew it clearly.
So, it does not make any senses that Nick asked a meaningless questions.

So, i would believe this is a Bribery, as mentioned above in the BOLIC words.

Andre rejected at first and agreed at the second times, which indicated Andre understood the offer behind.

Edited Alex YEUNG (Nov. 21, 2013 02:41:32 AM)