I have been following the passionate discussion on intentional draws that has been raging (uh?) across the various Magic sites for the past few weeks. I'm not here to change anyone's opinion on the subject, but I do have a few things to point out.

The ID problem is created by a non-standard combination of a Swiss tournament with a single elimination top eight.

Outside of Magic, most people are not familiar with the structure of a Swiss tournament. It does not come up in football, basketball, or even soccer (sorry, Rui). Maybe it's too new or it's just not an American thing, but Rizzo's hypothetical old-timer (or was it his Grandpa?) probably has not encountered Swiss pairings, so taking an ID before the top eight is determined may SEEM counter to the "spirit of competition" to those who are not familiar with the system.

Magic tournaments use Swiss pairings because they are very effective at 1) determining who the best players are by having them compete head-to-head, 2) letting everyone play, even after a loss, because 3) Swiss is also fairly straightforward for the TO, and 4) allows any number of competitors with, at most, one bye per round. Everyone plays. Everyone gets their money's worth. Everyone is happy. Right? Anyone who has participated in a large double-elimination tournament will appreciate the simplicity of Swiss pairings. In straight Swiss rounds, an ID is still not as bad as a loss, but it will not help you win the tournament, so no one will do it. If there is no top eight to draw into, everyone plays the rounds out.

Most people are familiar with the single-elimination top eight part. These are used in Magic because it is important and exciting to have the top decks face off in the finals. It plays to the sense of justice and drama that Hollywood has instilled in us all. It also solves one of the problems with Swiss rounds. In a pure Swiss tournament, the winner (the player with the best record) may never play the second best - or if they have, they may have played in the early rounds. The feeling of finality that the top eight gives a tournament is missing from straight Swiss rounds.

So Magic has adopted the Swiss rounds with a top-eight structure. This structure inherently creates the incentive for players to ID. You know the pro/con arguments by now. Even Rizzo and Rui acknowledge that they are legal; they just don't think they are fair. Chad brought up a few other sports for comparison, but missed the mark with the "running out the clock" analogy; Rui called him on it, but failed to elaborate.

If other sports adopted the Swiss and top eight structure, IDs would be likely. Other sports might have features that prevent it or make it impractical, but Aaron Forsythe told us IDs are an issue in competitive Scrabble tournaments. I can imagine pro football running this type of season (tournament), but there are a few things that keep this from happening. Swiss pairings in the regular season would create scheduling problems. "Who will we be playing two weeks from now?" There are no home teams in a Magic tournament. Revenue-generating sports would be stupid to allow an ID at the end of the Swiss, because they need money from hot dog sales and stuff. But even in the current season structure, if an NFL team has secured the home field advantage through the playoffs with a dominating record, why should they risk an injury to star players that might hurt their chances in the playoffs? How is Joe Montana making a token five-minute start in the 16th game of a 15-1 season (to fulfill his bonus provision) different from an ID in Magic? They aren't playing as hard as they can - "Playoffs be damned!" If it weren't for the attendance, TV money, and a bit of fan backlash*, you can bet they would ID into the playoffs. There are no fans for a Magic player to disappoint by not playing one round.

The DCI has a problem with IDs that you may not know about: They HAVE to allow them, and the reason for this is enforceability. How can you force two people who do not want to play competitively to do so? You can't - at least not in Magic. They could just have a two-sided game of draw-go for the allotted time. By allowing IDs, something they can't really stop, the DCI removes the need for the waste of time described above. IDs are an unfortunate side effect of having Swiss rounds and a top eight.

The DCI has the same problems with concession. What Alex did for Zvi is just as unenforceable. When I first read the match report, I can't really say I was appalled (like Chad, Rui, and a few others I've read). Who doesn't help their friends? I think the more work you have put into it with your teammate/opponent, and the more at stake, the more people will be willing to concede in that situation. What if they were twin brothers? What if they were mother and son? ("Thanks, Mom!") Does that change anything? I don't really have a problem with that, but then again I didn't finish 8th - 25th in Chicago.**

In the Alex and Zvi situation, what I was wondering was, what would happen if the judge told Alex he could not concede? Why did they ask the judge on the matter at all? Alex could have "forgotten" to de-sideboard from the last round, or done any number of things to "earn" a loss. How is a judge going to stop that? Make him play? He conceded the open and appropriate way. The concession rule keeps the judges from making stupid rulings. I guess the lessons to be learned from this are that 1) make sure you follow the rules and be careful what you say, and 2) bring lots of friends to tournaments and make sure they a) do well enough to play you in the last round of Swiss and b) don't do any better than you, so YOU don't have to concede to THEM.

So to recap, the tournament structure that has been chosen for most magic tournaments creates the incentive for players to concede or intentional draw. Unenforceability makes concession and intentional draws legal. Maybe instead of rallying against IDs and concessions, players should seek to change tournaments to a pure Swiss system or a single elimination system. I have a feeling that would hurt PTQ attendance. At least I don't have to worry about IDs or conceding. I'll never be threatened with such a choice.

Let the debate continue. Happy drawing and conceding.

Reeve

* - The fans that truly wanted their team in the Super Bowl would not be upset at all, but those with season tickets would be a little miffed that Sunday.

** - These places were affected by the concession. Arto Hiltunen missed out on top eight, and those who finished under Zvi (7th) would have each made some more money (+/- $1,000). In an interesting contrast, players from 25th to around 17th (?) made MORE money because of the concession! If Alex had beaten Zvi, he would have been higher than 26th, and bumped them down in the prize list.