At a 2HG Magic Origins Prerelease event I was Head Judging, I got asked an interesting question by one of the players pertaining to offering incentives. This is a player who knew that one could not provide incentives to their opponents to influence a match result, but wanted to know if he could offer his 2HG partner some of the packs he would get from an Intentional Draw to convince him to draw so that they could leave early.

I am curious what other judges think. The relevant sections of policy documentation I could find are as follows:

Originally posted by MTR 2.4:

Players may not agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any reward or incentive. Doing so will be considered Bribery (see section 5.2).

MTR 5.2
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. Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an offer calls for a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner.

IPG 4.4
A player offers an incentive to entice an opponent into conceding, drawing, or changing the results of a match, or accepts such an offer. Refer to the Magic Tournament Rules for a more detailed description of what constitutes bribery.

JAR - Serious Problems
Determining match outcomes by incentives, coercion, or outside-the-game methods, or gambling on any part of a tournament.

Obviously the IPG does not apply at Regular REL. I am merely quoting it as it provides relevantly-different language from the quoted MTR passage, and the JAR passage is more vague. As the IPG no longer takes into account multiplayer formats, it is possible this difference does not actually create the ambiguity I am assigning to it. Is the quoted MTR passage correct that no player may agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any reward or incentive, even when it does not come from their opponent? Or does the language contained in the IPG better reflect the intent behind that statement?

EDIT: Added sections that should have been quoted in the original post from the MTR and the JAR.

Edited Jacob Milicic (July 14, 2015 09:04:13 AM)

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

I am curious what other judges think.

…but, why? It only matters what Policy says! :)

Yes, they can discuss how to divide their prizes between the two of them (or, for 3-player events, all 3). It's like they're talking to themselves, so those concerns about collusion just don't apply.

d:^D