Hi all! I recently attended a GP as a spectator and the following discussion occurred amongst some friends of mine who were playing in the event (the situation did not happen, it was just a discussion we were having). An L3 was called and answered the question, but I wanted some more detail so that I can apply it properly at future events.

Player A would like Player B to concede to him, because Player A wants something associated with the concession that Player B is not in the running for. For example, at a GP, in a pair up/pair down situation, Player A wants the Pro Points while Player B cannot get any Pro Points (important distinction: The thing being received by Player A is not something that can be split, and not something that can be negotiated as being given to Player A even if Player B wins, it's not part of the prize pool, and the players are not trying to negotiate the thing being given to the wrong player, like “I'll take the win but you get the RPTQ invite” or something like that).

According to the L3 we spoke to, it is not legal for Player A to say to Player B: “I want the pro point and you can't get a pro point, do you mind conceding to me?”

My confusion is that this does not fall easily under any of the UC infractions in IPG: It's not IDaW because players are allowed to concede for any reason so long as the reason isn't based on the outcome of a game unrelated to Magic (or so is my understanding), it's not Bribery because Player B is not receiving anything for the concession, and it's defnitely not UC - Aggressive Behaviour or Cheating. So, my question is: What infraction would this be?

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 25, 2017 12:35:23 PM)

Interesting question, thansk for sharing this with us!

I see a huge potential danger here: B may be very tempted to ask something along the lines of “what's in it for me”, or B might even explicitly ask for some kind of compensation. So if this happens, please do step in and prevent B from “hanging himself”.

A player is allowed to ask another player to concede. They are allowed to explain why they think that concession is warranted. The other player can then concede or not concede. Anything else is likely to end up in a chat to a judge.

I don't see any infraction in Player A's statement/question. Some judges are just very cautious in this area because of where the conversation might lead.

Thanks for the opinions (and keep em coming!). For some additional context, there was also a prize split in this situation, but we were very clear that the prize split was being resolved separately from the concession. The general idea was:

Player A: Would you like to prize split?
Player B: Y/N
Player A: I would like the pro point, would you mind conceding?
Player B: Y/N

Does that change any of your answers? When talking to the L3, my understanding was that the added layer of the prize split caused some issues for him, just wondering if this is a larger problem I should be aware of.

That still seems fine. The prize split is always legal when independent of match outcome, unless it's an uneven split where the loser would get more prize.

Saying you want the Pro Point is not really different from saying you want the Planeswalker Points for a win, and there is still nothing being offered for the concession.

Edited Josh Stansfield (July 25, 2017 05:26:39 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Thanks for the opinions (and keep em coming!). For some additional context, there was also a prize split in this situation, but we were very clear that the prize split was being resolved separately from the concession. The general idea was:

Player A: Would you like to prize split?
Player B: Y/N
Player A: I would like the pro point, would you mind conceding?
Player B: Y/N

Does that change any of your answers? When talking to the L3, my understanding was that the added layer of the prize split caused some issues for him, just wondering if this is a larger problem I should be aware of.

I wonder why Player A offer split before asking concession. Definitely I will ask the reason of this action to Player A. In this case, it is pretty likely prize split affect the decision of Player B at concession offer.
If Player A ask concession, get an answer, and then prize split, I don't see any problem here.

As described, this is fine. Players are allowed to explain why they want a concession, and nothing is being offered here.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Player A: Would you like to prize split?
Player B: Y/N
Player A: I would like the pro point, would you mind conceding?
Player B: Y/N

This is absolutely legal.

As far as I know, this is exactly how seasoned players “game the system”, i.e. concede in exchange for something without being disqualified. I can remember reading about this in a player-targeted article.

Again, this is absolutely legal, and it couldn't be another way.
Imagine the following:

Player A: Would you like to prize split, so that loser gets all the prize?
Player B: (thinks player A wants to concede in exchange for prize) Sure!
Player A: Fine, let's play.
Player B: …

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Player A: Would you like to prize split, so that loser gets all the prize?
Player B: (thinks player A wants to concede in exchange for prize) Sure!
Player A: Fine, let's play.
Player B: …

Wait, are prize split offers somehow binding? I don't see anything in the MTR about this, and I don't see how a judge/TO could enforce it. It seems like B in this situation can simply not abide by the split.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

Wait, are prize split offers somehow binding? I don't see anything in the MTR about this, and I don't see how a judge/TO could enforce it.

Sure, it's not our concern.

What I wanted to mean is that, if player A proposes that loser gets all the prize, he isn't telling “I will concede in exchange for the prize” - even if 99% of the times, things will go that way.
Player A can make that proposal, and then A and B play their match.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

are prize split offers somehow binding?

Only as a verbal promise between two individuals; as you surmised, they are not something that judges or TOs should try to enforce.

I've spoken with a number of players - whom we often call “pros” - and they admit that there are players with whom they'll never split or draw or concede, because those few players are known for failing to honor their agreements. That's how such agreements become binding - entirely within the community of players (and again, none of our concern as judges).

Also, just to wrap up Yet Another OMG Bribery thread - what Josh Stansfield says is correct.

d:^D