As far as I see it, the split did not happen in exchange for a game or match result. If Nick had asked Andre if he wanted to do a split if he conceded, that would be something completely different, but as far as this agreement is concerned, Nick could also just have played on after getting the split. If I go to my grocer, and tell him I'll give him 100€ if he sells his best apples only to me, then that's bribery. If I go to my grocer and ask him to sell his best apples only to me, and once he agrees to do so then give him 100€, even though we didn't even bring that up, then that's just good sports from the both of us.

Yeah, I can't see any way to construe this as Bribery unless there is information in this scenario not being presented. Of course, if the FJ had evidence to believe that this was Bribery, he should present it (I would ask for such information before calling Andre and Nick aside, tbh, so I'm assuming for the moment that no such informatio exists). Based on what is presented here, though, I do not believe Bribery occurred.

The trick is that certainly Nick cannot say to Andre “I will concede if you split”, but if he simply asks “will you split?”, he is then well within his rights to concede of his own accord.

I'm going to agree it's not Bribery.

The two players agreed to split the prize. Upon agreeing, Nick conceded, since he figured that would maximize the split they get. The two players agreed, then one player saw an advantage to conceding, so he conceded.

Now, if Nick had said “I'll concede if we split” there would be an issue.

Thank you judges for participating in the discussion on this Gold scenario this week. We honestly thought that there would be more disagreement, but most, if not all, of you agreed that this situation is not Bribery. And you would be correct.

Concessions/intentional draws and prize splits are allowed under the MTR. What would make it Bribery, is if you are using one to get the other (offer of a concession/draw to get a split, offer of a split to get a concession/draw). At a quick glance, you can see that the split was agreed to and then the concession made after. This is a situation though where it is important to still investigate and dig a little bit to be sure nothing else happened. It's possible that they have talked about what would happen if either player wins and would both be aware of the potential outcomes. This by itself does not make either player guilty, but still must be looked at and you must use your best judgment to decide if one player made it clear they would concede if a prize split was agreed to.

Some have argued that Nick had an incentive to concede after the split was agreed to and that would mean he has committed Bribery. As human beings, incentives drive us to do everything in life. We work so that we can earn money to pay our bills, keep ourselves fed, and to fund hobbies. We partake in hobbies to be entertained. We go out for a couple drinks for social interaction. We rarely do something in life without an incentive. Simply having an incentive to do something does not constitute Bribery in all cases. Offering an incentive to get a match result or a prize split, however, is Bribery.

Thanks again for your contributions. The next Knowledge Pool Scenario will be up tomorrow!

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I agree with everyone else that there doesn't appear to be any bribery going on here.

Players are allowed to share prizes unconditionally at any point in time, so asking for the split unconditionally as it was presented here is fair game.

The MTR does say that the decision to concede cannot be made in exchange for a match result, which was not the case here, since the split affected only Nick in as much as it was wholly his decision to concede. However, it also states that such a decision may not be *influenced* by a split, which is clearly the case here, since Nick has little reason to concede in the absence of a split. However, the spirit of this rule appears to be to prevent collusion, and collusion needs two people to collude. Andre didn't mention anything about a concession before agreeing to the split, so there is no obvious collusion going on here, so I feel it would be against the spirit of the MTR to apply an infraction here.

It's possible that Nick has committed Unsporting Conduct - Minor in as much that it could be considered inappropriate to offer the split a second time, when the decision could be influenced by the games that have already been played, and depending on how the question was asked and the dynamic between the two players I would not hesitate to give this penalty if I felt that Nick was in some way trying to browbeat his opponent into a split, even if the split itself is unconditional.

My investigation for this call would include interviewing anyone who arrived with these two players if I felt that some kind of non-verbal communication might have taken place that would cause me to suspect real collusion here.

I would also ask the floor judge if they suspected any sort of non-verbal communication, and if they had felt that it was unusual for the split to be offered a second time, and inquire about the attitude of the two players during the match, and especially regarding the split. I would also remind the floor judge that players are allowed to split prizes, and give them a brief reminder of the kind of things we're looking out for to find collusion, such as if statements, or implications of a reward for a certain match result.

I'm not seeing an infraction here. There was no discussion of a match result, so there was no exchange of results for prizes. All that happened here was a split being offered, (once at the beginning of each game - I don't see this as USC or browbeating the opponent with the offer, as after Andre said ‘no’ the first time, two games were played without it being mentioned again until game 3,) and accepted. Nick's concession was not in exchange for the split; it's obvious that he had determined that his EV for the event was highest with Andre making top 8 & conceded to ensure that result.

Unless the floor judge had picked up on something non-verbal that would lead to me interviewing other players who'd observed the event, I would let this go & remind the floor judge (as Matthew suggested) of how prize splits work under the IPG.

I'm just a Level 1 taking a crack at this but I'm pretty sure it was Bribery. Here's my reasoning.

At first I thought it was an open and shut case of no infraction because nothing was explicitly offered for anything else. However, upon looking at it again, I think there was something offered.

Nick offered to split prizes. He knows that if Andre concedes to him, he's not going to Top 8 and won't have prizes to split. (or at least very low prizes) He knows that if he concedes to Andre, Andre will Top 8 and will get a lot of money which he will then split with Nick.

The offer to ‘split prizes’ seems benign but Nick knows that in one scenario (Andre conceding to Nick) little to no splitting will actually occur while in the other, (Nick conceding to Andre) actual and significant prize splitting will occur.

It is not logical for them to agree to split prizes and then mark Nick down as the winner because he has no shot at Top 8. So, Nick is effectively (though not explicitly) offering a concession in exchange for prizes. I think that this situation is only a bribe with clear knowledge of the ramifications of accepting a ‘split’. Andre doesn't indicate whether he knew the standings and actually indicates that Nick ‘grabbed’ the sheet and marked down the score. Nick admits to knowing the standings and it appears he jumped at the opportunity to exchange his loss for some cash.

So, in summary, it looks to me like Nick is guilty of Bribery. I'm unclear, however, whether or not Andre is also guilty of an infraction because it's very possible that he didn't realize what the standings were and expected to discuss who would concede to who after agreeing to it. I'm actually inclined not to give Andre an infraction because it looks like he didn't know what the standings were and wasn't given an opportunity to discuss concessions. It looks like Nick was expecting to concede and wanted some money for it.

Hey everybody.

Thanks for your enthusiasm, but once the conclusion has been posted, discussion is done. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to send a private message to the poster of the scenario.

Thank you.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL