Here´s a case that has risen some controversy on my community. I will like to have your insight on it.

Last round of Swiss. Players ranked 7 to 10 start their games between them. Speculations starts to work, since in this case, player 10 can make it to top 8 if 7-8 plays out; and 7-8 must play since player 9 winning throws 8 away from the top.
That´s fine so far:

“(…) Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.” (MTR 5.2)

Now, considering that:

“A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.” (MTR 2.4)

Situations:
-I, as a judge, see player 7 swing for lethal. Player 8 scoops and says “ok, game 3?” to which player 7 responds “yeah” and both procede to shuffle. On the 9-10 table, Player 10 gets angry and says that this game is over: 7 has win both games of the match. 8 says that player 7 conceded game one, to which he agrees… but i have seen player 8 deciding wether to go or draw first for this game (meaning he lost the previous). What should I do here, if anything? Player 7 seems to be… retroactively? concedeing.

-Let´s say players 7 and 8 play three games, ending 2-1. They are both friends, so they both want to make it to the top together. Could they start a “fourth” game expecting to get players 9-10 result?

In short: is the result of the match wathever the players take to the SK as far as we care? (if so, why the “if conceding player won a game in the match… must be reported as 2-1”?) The CR tells us when a player wins or loses, and that matches usually consist of a 2-out-of-3 games (thus approaching Cheating) But what takes precedence here?
-A game ends when your life drops to 0 (CR)
-Until you stand up or fill the slip, you can agree on the result of the match (MTR)

Originally posted by Juan Agustín Cuch:

-Until you stand up or fill the slip, you can agree on the result of the match (MTR)

This takes precendence. However, the result must eb as true to what happened as possible, you are not allowed to ignore a match that was played, so you can't report a 2-1 result as 2-0; however, both 2-1 and 1-2 are perfectly acceptable ways to report the result of this match.

If the third game is over, you may require the players to fill out the slip. The whole idea of cut to Top X sometimes yields awkward situations, but it's the least worst tournament set-up I know of…

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

If the third game is over, you may require the players to fill out the slip. The whole idea of cut to Top X sometimes yields awkward situations, but it's the least worst tournament set-up I know of…

What if the players are trusting each others (because they're friends or some other reason) and ID the third game as soon as the winner is clear under the condition that the winner of that game wins the match if he needs the win? Of course I would never suggest that to players but is there anything we can do against it? Technically they did nothing wrong and the 4th game belongs to the match with the current standing of 1-1-1. This also dosn't seem to be bribary (Nothing of value decides the end of the match) or Cheating (No rules are broken)

If I understand it correctl, they are now after 2 games with result 2-0 for one of them and they proceeding to game 3?
If yes, then based on MTR 2.1 (“A Magic match consists of a series of games that are played until one side has won a set number of games, usually two.”) match is concluded in my understanding, and If result slips are used at this tournament I would ask players to fill it out with result that they agree on.

You mentioned a few important things that I'd follow up on. You saw player 8 decide whether he was going to play or draw for game 2 meaning player 7 had won that game and you saw player 7 swing for lethal in game 2. I would take the players aside and ask them to confirm a couple things starting with who won game 1. They both will say player 7 most likely and that's expected, but then you can question them about why player 8 was able to choose play/draw. If their answers differ then you now have at least one player lying to a tournament official which is listed under UC - cheating. You can also ask if anyone else was watching the match and get their statements to support or dissuade that ruling.

You also have the option of investigating around UC - Improperly Determining a Winner.

A player uses or offers to use an outside-the-game method to determine the outcome of a game or match.

I would definitely count the match result of the players next to you as an outside-the-game method. If you believe that's what is going on after your investigation then feel free to call them on it.

Originally posted by Juan Agustín Cuch:

They are both friends, so they both want to make it to the top together. Could they start a “fourth” game expecting to get players 9-10 result?

This sounds like the epitome of collusion and could warrant a couple DQs.

Edited Preston May (June 10, 2015 09:19:22 AM)

Originally posted by Preston May:

This sounds like the epitome of collusion and could warrant a couple DQs.

Can you cite anything in the IPG that mentions Collusion? ;)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Can you cite anything in the IPG that mentions Collusion? ;)

It doesn't mention collusion specifically. I would have a situation like this fall under UC - Improperly Determining a Winner. The collusion portion of it is just an agreement ahead of time that if player A wins then we can both get in by drawing whereas if player B wins then I will win and I get in. The result of the match is then being determined by an outside the game source, namely the table next to you. A similar example, although less strategic, would be determining a winner based on if my friend beats your friend in their legacy game a couple tables over.

Collusion is just a plan to manipulate the results of a tournament with a group of people. I think the IPG covers most of the individual actions of collusion pretty well.

Collusion is treated in the MTR (collusion and bribery), and therefore can be cheating if the players do it knowingly and want to get an advantage by it.

FROM IPG 4.8 USC-Cheating

A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.

Still, the definition of collusion is not crystal clear in the MTR. The only specific use of the word is in the title of the chapter. I would argue that most important rule for collusion (regarding this problem) would be:

FROM MTR 5.2 Collusion and Bribery

Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.

Therefore, I don't think the situation involves neither collusion nor bribery. I guess someone could argue this is stalling (“A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit”), but I don't agree about it neither, as they are not taking advantage of the time limit.

Getting involved in the conversation is the best thing you can do. Ask the 7-8 players if they are done with their match. If they say they are not done ask them what game they are on. If one player has 2 wins the match is over and ask them to fill out the slip. If they are playing a game because they chose to draw earlier games they are allowed to do that. If they are paying more attention to the match that is not their own match. Issue slow play when appropriate.

It is my personal opinion to remind them that they are skirting a line, that if they slip up, will end poorly for both players and suggest they play magic instead. Also if they have any questions about it we talk with them after their match has been reported.

Not in any document, but what I do in my tournaments is not allow any ID result after 5 min from when the round started, that has been well received among the players in the store where I judge and they agree 100% with not having people hang out waiting for a result to see if a draw would put both of them into a top 8.

In any case concessions are allowed at any time, but I won't receive an ID result unless they really played a game which ended in a 1-1-1 result, for which in any case I try to keep an eye for collusion or bribery.

Originally posted by Jose Luis Arrieta:

Not in any document, but what I do in my tournaments is not allow any ID result after 5 min from when the round started, that has been well received among the players in the store where I judge and they agree 100% with not having people hang out waiting for a result to see if a draw would put both of them into a top 8.

In any case concessions are allowed at any time, but I won't receive an ID result unless they really played a game which ended in a 1-1-1 result, for which in any case I try to keep an eye for collusion or bribery.

While I understand the meaning behind this, I would be wary of trying to enforce something that is directly counter to the rules. The MTR specifically says:

MTR
If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.

Originally posted by Jose Luis Arrieta:

what I do in my tournaments is not allow any ID result…

Please, don't do that. (As Chuck explains!)

d:^D

Thank you all for your responses! You are helping me a lot to clarify things.

I´m still a bit troubled with a couple of things, which I´ll try to refer more specifically.

A- The results the players fill should be as “true” as possible: I like this line very much with concessions, but there is one small thing more I can´t settle yet. This doesn´t applies to intentional draws, right? Since an intentional draw is always a 0-0-3, and is itself absolutely true. So, do this mean that these players could play out their match, expecting to hear the results from other table, and then decide to simply draw, ignoring the outcome of the games so far (provided they haven´t reached the second win of either)?

B- I would prefer to consider collusion on another degree, like keeping it to when multiple players plot on the outcome of more than one match. For example, say that in this case 7, 8 and 9 were teammates, and I could determine that the three of them agreed on 7-8 drawing and 9 conceding to a random Player 10. It would be very hard to find out in reality, but here they certainly are colluding (scheming against the tournament!).
I find support to these way of thinking since Collusion forbids to “reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches”, but in the original case 7 and 8 are intending to agree on a draw depending on how 9-10 turns out. They are certainly taking into account information from other matches, but that is legal. They are not reaching an agreement WITH other matches (actually, that´s the problem between them).
The same goes for considering this a case of UC-IDaW. I can see how they are deciding the outcome of their match based on other match´s result (a non-gaming element), but the MTR allows them to do so.

C- Te real problem left (the above two are more like a conclusion so far :P) is what to do on my first case: Player 8 decide to go first, loses game 2, and then both agree that 7 conceded on game 1. I am inclined to think that it is actually Cheating… since they seem like playing as they see fit, deciding who wins and who plays first as they please, and even changing it if it doesn´t helps them anymore. They are breaking the rules (it isn´t the same who decides who goes first), on purpose (it would take the players a hell of a work to convince me they didn´t now the play-draw rule), and they clearly expect benefit out of it. Am I correct or am I getting a bit too far?

D- The issue with “the 4th+ game” still lingers to me, and I would really love to just be told “don´t let them!” :P
Sorry that I am being so problematic…
Let´s say player 7 is about to swing for lethal. Can they draw that game there… and do it again and again just to make time, as long as they don´t go past the clock? Because I could easily see the trick there… but find no rules support to stop that.