A moral question:

[warble]

You should not scoop your cards, but you should make your best effort to allow your opponent to win the game.  It's certainly not illegal to take the maximum amount of time for a turn, but what is illegal is doing that on purpose.  That would be cheating.  Period.  Let's take, for example, my experience at waterbury.  Intuition for crap that doesn't matter, shuffle, pop fetchland, shuffle, demonic tutor, shuffle, go.  Was it reasonable to take 5 minutes for the shuffling?  No, and a judge should be called.  Clearly your opponent is attempting to use the time constraint to win the match, in a manner that goes outside the bounds of normal play.  I learned this the hard way, having my opponent cheat and knock me out of Waterbury because of it.

I would say, if you're attempting to use a time constraint to force a draw, make sure you don't mess up.  You will be taken out of prize contention immediately, and may not be allowed to return to the tournament...ever...  One thing I will never do is intentionally stall a game with tutors and shuffle effects.  The intent is to play the game, not manipulate rules.  Rules manipulation is similarly illegal, and although it may not take you out of prize contention, if I was the head judge it would.

All the banter about "well it's legal to play these cards and the time constraints..." don't matter to the head judge.  It is always a judgement call, so you need to play your best but give your opponent his opportunity to win.  If your play speed doesn't give your opponent a legitimate chance to win the game, and you do this on purpose, technical rules protecting you or not the head judge does not have to rule in your favor.  Intend to play fairly and in a timely fashion and you will.  Intend not to and you're going to get caught, and it's going to suck.

[dicemanx]

I would say, if you're attempting to use a time constraint to force a draw, make sure you don't mess up.  You will be taken out of prize contention immediately, and may not be allowed to return to the tournament...ever...  One thing I will never do is intentionally stall a game with tutors and shuffle effects.  The intent is to play the game, not manipulate rules.

So you're not allowed to cast spells or shuffle properly once you have no chance of winning, because that would be stalling? The problem here is taking inordinate amounts of time to resolve your spells or shuffle, but you can still perform those actions in order to kill time. The best way to do that is to play your tutors, fetches, or any shuffle effects, and take the full time allotted to resolve/shuffle.

[Juggernaut GO]

In my situation I was setting up a handful of counters and a huge will turn after several gifts cast over a few turns.  That would leave me with 2 time walks after will to possibly take 2 of the extra turns when it came to time. 

[Apollyon]

I think that something that people are missing is that the goal of decks should be to win 2 out of 3 games in 50 minutes. The 50 minutes shouldn't be viewed as an evil force that does Bad Things, but it should be viewed as a design constraint. If your opponent's deck isn't designed to win 2 out of the 3 games within 50 minutes, their deck needs work.

To say that you have a legal (in the terms of the game rules) obligation to scoop isn't true at all. Depending on your ethical views, scooping might be an obligation. No one can make that ethical judgement for you, as ethics is a personal subject, and only you can make decisions about that.

On the taking extra time: Doing so intentionally is called stalling. The Penalty Guidelines reference it as "Cheating- Stalling" and they state that the proper penalty for all RELs is DQ without prize. warble, when your opponent did that, you should have called a judge. As a matter of fact, I encourage everyone to call a judge over anything.

It's not Slow Play or Stalling until a judge says so, speaking as a player of Life from way back (I've never received even a Caution for Slow Play), but there is definitely a line somewhere, and players will push it to the maximum.

Stalling is Stalling, regardless of whether or not a judge is around to notice it. This isn't quantum mechnics land, this is the same real world that both you and I live in. The judges can only do so much, but when you call over a judge, they will be aware of your concerns. Otherwise, the judges will have a difficult time reading your mind and sensing that you feel that your opponent might be playing too slowly. They are, in fact, only mortal, and bound by the same limits of flesh that you have.

[Harlequin]

The "Deck must win in 50 mins" argument is dramatically flawed.  Here's why... Look at a timed game of chess.  It is my understanding that even at chess tournements that are not "speed" chess, the game is governed by a chess clock.  Each player has thier OWN 1 hour block of time to think about the game.  This promotes speedy play, because If you think too long then you only waste your own time.

You could almost make the arguement that your deck should consume the most amount of the 50 mins you and your opponent have to share.   It seems very rare that in matchs that go to time, both players have a fair 25 mins of priority.   The more I think about the concept of a 50 min round the more I realise how unfair it inherrantly is. 

Do i think they should change it?  No.  Do i think its even possible to change the 50 min turn? No. 
But I think, as players, we should rethink what it means to play a "fair" game.  If you really want to play a fair game, maybe you should concede the game if you cannot win AND you've used up more of the 50 min round than your opponent did.   Playing for a draw is one thing, but do you really feel you deserve a win if your play style took up 35+ mins of a 50 mins round (leaveing your opponent only 15 mins to actually win)?

Maybe your opponent deserves a win more than you do, because they almost beat you in 15 mins vrs your 35....

Anyone with me?

[nataz]

Anyone with me?

No.

[Cross]

Definitely not. Playing a slow strategy is your own choice, and if you cannot win in time then play a different deck, or play faster.

[sundering jerk]

play on and let the match finish

 If you scoop just to let this guy advance you're only keeping someone else from t8ing. It's only right that the strong survive and the weak don't deserve to win. If they can't kill you then they aren't good enough. Plus mercy isn't how I want to win.

Plus you should never scoop. You never know what could happen, your opponent could find a way to burn himself to death, who know. Plus if you scoop just to let this guy advance you're only keeping someone else from t8ing.

[Apollyon]

The "Deck must win in 50 mins" argument is dramatically flawed.  Here's why... Look at a timed game of chess.  It is my understanding that even at chess tournements that are not "speed" chess, the game is governed by a chess clock.  Each player has thier OWN 1 hour block of time to think about the game.  This promotes speedy play, because If you think too long then you only waste your own time.

First of all, that's part of the design constraints: you need to win 2 games within a shared 50 minute time period. You can debate whether or not it's good all you want, but at the end of the day, you still need to win 2 games in 50 minutes. Life would be so much easier if we could all just say, "I want to do this, but such-and-such constraint gets in my way." But life isn't like that, and you just need to suck it up, stop whining, and design appropriately.

You could almost make the arguement that your deck should consume the most amount of the 50 mins you and your opponent have to share.   It seems very rare that in matchs that go to time, both players have a fair 25 mins of priority.   The more I think about the concept of a 50 min round the more I realise how unfair it inherrantly is. 

The problem with that is that if they take a while to win game 1, and you don't have enough time to win games 2 and 3, you can't win the match. It also takes a while, so you'll frequently go to time, which is bad, because you go straight from playing a match to playing another match. There is no bathroom break, no time for a smoke break (if you do so), no time to grab food.

Ideally, the world would be a place of sunshine and flowers, and we'd have as much time as we want to build decks, play our rounds, as well as having time between rounds to do non-Magic things. But the real world is hardly ideal. Speaking as both an experienced tournament player and a judge, I love the 50 minute rule, as it not only keeps the round times fairly predictable, but it also allows us to get out before the next morning.

Do i think they should change it?  No.  Do i think its even possible to change the 50 min turn? No. 
But I think, as players, we should rethink what it means to play a "fair" game.  If you really want to play a fair game, maybe you should concede the game if you cannot win AND you've used up more of the 50 min round than your opponent did.   Playing for a draw is one thing, but do you really feel you deserve a win if your play style took up 35+ mins of a 50 mins round (leaveing your opponent only 15 mins to actually win)?

You earn wins by winning 2 games. As long as you do so within the constraints of the rules, how you do so is irrelevant. You can feel like your wins are "unfun", but at the end of the day, you came, you sat down, you conquered (apologies to Caesar).

Maybe your opponent deserves a win more than you do, because they almost beat you in 15 mins vrs your 35....

There is no deserving to win. There is only deserving to lose and deserving to not-lose. If your opponent can't beat you, they don't deserve to win because you play a slow deck. They need to earn their wins just as much as you need to earn yours.

[Dante]

There is no deserving to win. There is only deserving to lose and deserving to not-lose. If your opponent can't beat you, they don't deserve to win because you play a slow deck. They need to earn their wins just as much as you need to earn yours.

Bronze that and put it up in every store that people play in.

[Godder]

So you're not allowed to cast spells or shuffle properly once you have no chance of winning, because that would be stalling? The problem here is taking inordinate amounts of time to resolve your spells or shuffle, but you can still perform those actions in order to kill time. The best way to do that is to play your tutors, fetches, or any shuffle effects, and take the full time allotted to resolve/shuffle.

That depends on what you mean by that. If you consistently take the full time (or close to it) allowed to shuffle and so forth, that's one thing, but if you only start doing so after you're losing, that's stalling.

On the taking extra time: Doing so intentionally is called stalling. The Penalty Guidelines reference it as "Cheating- Stalling" and they state that the proper penalty for all RELs is DQ without prize. warble, when your opponent did that, you should have called a judge. As a matter of fact, I encourage everyone to call a judge over anything.

That was the basis for my comment. If there's a problem, summon a Judge, and get them to fix it. If you don't, there's not really any basis for complaints. If you're in a situation where Slow Play/Stalling is tempting, a Judge can/should be brought in to watch.

It's not Slow Play or Stalling until a judge says so, speaking as a player of Life from way back (I've never received even a Caution for Slow Play), but there is definitely a line somewhere, and players will push it to the maximum.

Stalling is Stalling, regardless of whether or not a judge is around to notice it. This isn't quantum mechnics land, this is the same real world that both you and I live in. The judges can only do so much, but when you call over a judge, they will be aware of your concerns. Otherwise, the judges will have a difficult time reading your mind and sensing that you feel that your opponent might be playing too slowly. They are, in fact, only mortal, and bound by the same limits of flesh that you have.

To some extent, but Stalling/Slow Play are probably the hardest calls for a Judge to make because they require a Judge to become a table judge for long enough to determine it one way or the other, as well as being arguably the murkiest area of the floor rules. It's also very open to individual interpretations. The problems here are very similar to applying Article 10.4 in the Laws of Chess, and one of the reasons time controls have changed in the past 10 years.

First of all, that's part of the design constraints: you need to win 2 games within a shared 50 minute time period. You can debate whether or not it's good all you want, but at the end of the day, you still need to win 2 games in 50 minutes. Life would be so much easier if we could all just say, "I want to do this, but such-and-such constraint gets in my way." But life isn't like that, and you just need to suck it up, stop whining, and design appropriately.

Life would also be so much easier if people didn't question stuff, and just accepted life as it is, but still, pesky creatures that we are, humans constantly and consistently try to improve everything. How things are and how things should be are potentially different, and there's nothing wrong with debating/discussing it in the abstract. TMD is an excellent place for this sort of discussion, as the many proxy discussion threads have shown.

You could almost make the arguement that your deck should consume the most amount of the 50 mins you and your opponent have to share.   It seems very rare that in matches that go to time, both players have a fair 25 mins of priority. The more I think about the concept of a 50 min round the more I realise how unfair it inherently is.

I note here that with sideboarding and deck presentation/shuffling, 50 minute matches are usually more like 45 minutes of actual playing time.

The problem with that is that if they take a while to win game 1, and you don't have enough time to win games 2 and 3, you can't win the match. It also takes a while, so you'll frequently go to time, which is bad, because you go straight from playing a match to playing another match. There is no bathroom break, no time for a smoke break (if you do so), no time to grab food.

Ideally, the world would be a place of sunshine and flowers, and we'd have as much time as we want to build decks, play our rounds, as well as having time between rounds to do non-Magic things. But the real world is hardly ideal. Speaking as both an experienced tournament player and a judge, I love the 50 minute rule, as it not only keeps the round times fairly predictable, but it also allows us to get out before the next morning.

I've never really liked 50 minute rounds because I've found that it allows "careful players" to extend matches to time too easily, but I live in a country where PTQs and other tournaments are much smaller, so we don't have that "next morning" issue to worry about. I agree that a set round time is essential to allow for easy planning, however.

Do I think they should change it?  No.

Do i think its even possible to change the 50 min turn? No.

Of course it's possible to change it. If it weren't, this discussion would be pointless and Apollyon's "suck it up" comment would be very applicable. There are options like using chess clocks to enforce an even split, increased round times, changing the current tournament structure, using different pairing systems, having more smaller tournaments, just to name a few. Magic is no more stuck with its current structure than Chess or Poker is.

For example, GPTs and PTQs are the most common "serious" tournaments, and the usual structure is currently Swiss + Top 8, where the Swiss has 'n' rounds, where 2ⁿ≤ no. of players. Another potential structure is straight Swiss with n+1 or n+2 rounds, which would save time, or a single/double elimination tournament (we're only looking for one winner, after all), which would also save time. The Swiss + Top 8 could be retained, but have fewer rounds e.g. n-1, because there's no real need for that last round with a top 8 play-off as well. If there are more than (say) 64 players, concurrent tournaments could be run with the winners of each playing off at the end. Any time saved with any of these could then be used to have longer rounds.

[dicemanx]

That depends on what you mean by that. If you consistently take the full time (or close to it) allowed to shuffle and so forth, that's one thing, but if you only start doing so after you're losing, that's stalling.

Really? So if I play quickly, I'm basically locked into playing at that speed? The amount of time you take to make decisions or to shuffle should be independent of whether you are playing to win or to prevent your opponent from winning.

[Apollyon]

To some extent, but Stalling/Slow Play are probably the hardest calls for a Judge to make because they require a Judge to become a table judge for long enough to determine it one way or the other, as well as being arguably the murkiest area of the floor rules. It's also very open to individual interpretations. The problems here are very similar to applying Article 10.4 in the Laws of Chess, and one of the reasons time controls have changed in the past 10 years.

The judge program has really started to emphasize cracking down on slow play, especially after Richmond. I'll agree that it's a murky area, but that's part of why judges exist. They make the calls, so the players don't have to. If you disagree with a call, appeal it to the HJ. If you disagree with what the HJ says, that's unfortunate. A good rule of thumb that I've heard used to describe what defines slow play: "If you have to ask yourself, 'Is that slow play?', then it's slow play." After saying, "I'm going to give you a warning for slow play, please play faster." a few times in a PTQ, I can testify that the players will hurry up and do what they were thinking that they should do.

I've never really liked 50 minute rounds because I've found that it allows "careful players" to extend matches to time too easily, but I live in a country where PTQs and other tournaments are much smaller, so we don't have that "next morning" issue to worry about. I agree that a set round time is essential to allow for easy planning, however.

Here in New England, we regularly get 100+ person PTQs. I worked a 119 person PTQ that started at 10 in the morning and ended past midnight. The time between rounds wasn't exceptionally bad (there was no starting round 2 at 4 pm). It just worked out that we put in over a 16 hour day judging.

Of course it's possible to change it. If it weren't, this discussion would be pointless and Apollyon's "suck it up" comment would be very applicable. There are options like using chess clocks to enforce an even split, increased round times, changing the current tournament structure, using different pairing systems, having more smaller tournaments, just to name a few. Magic is no more stuck with its current structure than Chess or Poker is.

We can't. The DCI can, however, I will warn you, broaching chess clocks to an L3+ is a good way to have your soul consumed. There are many different types of tournament layout, but most of them are remarkably similar. Modified Swiss is almost always isomorphic to Double Elim. In the majority of tournaments, x-2 won't make the cut. There are also fixed-point tournaments, where players need to get X match points to make the cutoff.

All of them don't really have much impact as to round time. I'd need an example of a different pairing system to compare, as I can't think of a more logical system at the moment than the psuedorandom pairings that we use now. Having more and smaller tournaments isn't always an option, and it's not always guaranteed. Let's say that they add one PTQ a PTQ season to each area. If the players go to all of the PTQs, you haven't done anything except increase the number of invites.

As to the increased round times, 2HG States will be run with 60 minute rounds. PT: Philly was run with 75 minute rounds (although it was a triple-elim tournament). According to witnesses, there were a lot of people playing past 50 minutes (part due to the format being Champs block, and part due to the fact that they could). There were still a lot of matches going to time. That partially illustrates that people will go to time, regardless of whether or not you give them an extra 25 minutes to play.

The other point that you bring up is a well-discussed subject, and that is chess clocks. It's usually been dismissed due to logistical issues, such as "Can you run a PTQ if the TO doesn't bring the chess clocks?", among many other cases. It works for MODO, because MODO is entirely digital, and not really connected to the Real World. As well, two of the reasons that they use those clocks are enforcement of slow play and to shut off disconnecting to prevent losses. MODO has no way to tell how fast you are playing (without making it a buggy, slow abomination, at least), so it needed a way to enforce Slow Play.

For example, GPTs and PTQs are the most common "serious" tournaments, and the usual structure is currently Swiss + Top 8, where the Swiss has 'n' rounds, where 2ⁿ≤ no. of players. Another potential structure is straight Swiss with n+1 or n+2 rounds, which would save time, or a single/double elimination tournament (we're only looking for one winner, after all), which would also save time. The Swiss + Top 8 could be retained, but have fewer rounds e.g. n-1, because there's no real need for that last round with a top 8 play-off as well. If there are more than (say) 64 players, concurrent tournaments could be run with the winners of each playing off at the end. Any time saved with any of these could then be used to have longer rounds.

I discussed that above.

Really? So if I play quickly, I'm basically locked into playing at that speed? The amount of time you take to make decisions or to shuffle should be independent of whether you are playing to win or to prevent your opponent from winning.

A change of pace is one indication of stalling. It isn't stalling, nor is it the only indication of stalling. If you play fast and slow down for a complex decision, that's fine. If you play fast and slow down because, that's an indication of slow play or stalling. Above all, you need to play at an appropriate speed.

[Harkius]

As I recall, you don't actually have to win 2 games out of 3. You simply have to win more than your opponent. If game 2 goes to time, and doesn't finish, whoever won Game 1 gets a match win, do they not?

So, if you use enough of the time, you actually win.

Harkius

[dicemanx]

Above all, you need to play at an appropriate speed.

Right, but is it not possible to "slow down" and yet still be playing at an "appropriate speed"? If you have been playing lightning fast and decide to slow down the pace so that you're resolving spells and shuffling at a moderate pace (at the judge's disgression), there's nothing wrong with that.

[Godder]

Right, but is it not possible to "slow down" and yet still be playing at an "appropriate speed"? If you have been playing lightning fast and decide to slow down the pace so that you're resolving spells and shuffling at a moderate pace (at the judge's discretion), there's nothing wrong with that.

A corollary to my point earlier about someone's play being stalling/slow play if a judge says it is, is that if the judge says it isn't slow play/stalling, it isn't. However, it's a real giveaway that someone is stalling if they go from consistently not-slow play to consistently slow play. Mixing it up all the time is a different matter, but this is the sort of thing I meant by murkiness. Commonly, slow play and stalling are like porn – hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

As I recall, you don't actually have to win 2 games out of 3. You simply have to win more than your opponent. If game 2 goes to time, and doesn't finish, whoever won Game 1 gets a match win, do they not?

So, if you use enough of the time, you actually win.

That's why all this is discussed so much, and why stalling and slow play are in the floor rules. As you say, while a match is won by the first player to win 2 games, a match that goes to time is won by the player with the most wins, and is otherwise drawn. Because of that, the temptation is there to play slowly when you're ahead or it's even (game count), and your opponent is in a better position (a nebulous concept, admittedly). The stated reason for the policy is so that, as much as feasible at least, people win by playing Magic rather than the clock.

[Gabethebabe]

ME:  "The Top 8 has really good matchups for me, and really bad matchups for you.  How about I advance, and if I win, I'll split the prize with you?"
HIM:  "Deal."

Am I missing something? Isn´t this completely illegal, offering a prize split in turn for a concession? What´s the name? Bribery?

[Evenpence]

ME:  "The Top 8 has really good matchups for me, and really bad matchups for you.  How about I advance, and if I win, I'll split the prize with you?"
HIM:  "Deal."

Am I missing something? Isn´t this completely illegal, offering a prize split in turn for a concession? What´s the name? Bribery?

Neither of us thought that was illegal.  We thought it was the same as splitting for power in the Finals.  News to me, but definitely good to know.

[Apollyon]

ME:  "The Top 8 has really good matchups for me, and really bad matchups for you.  How about I advance, and if I win, I'll split the prize with you?"
HIM:  "Deal."

Am I missing something? Isn´t this completely illegal, offering a prize split in turn for a concession? What´s the name? Bribery?

That is, in fact, bribery, and the proper recourse is DQ without prize. You aren't allowed to split prizes except in the finals. Note: you can't split the ticket and the invite in the finals of a PTQ. You also can't split prizes if they do the t8 payout based on Swiss standings, which is something that they do in the Mid-Atlantic PTQs now.

Neither of us thought that was illegal.  We thought it was the same as splitting for power in the Finals.  News to me, but definitely good to know.

Bribery is illegal. Whether or not you thought it was is irrelevant. You offered him something in exchange for a concession. That compromises the integrity of tournaments, as well as violating one of the principles of tournaments: The better player wins. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about being a lucksack, but, at least in theory, the better player will win the match.

A corollary to my point earlier about someone's play being stalling/slow play if a judge says it is, is that if the judge says it isn't slow play/stalling, it isn't. However, it's a real giveaway that someone is stalling if they go from consistently not-slow play to consistently slow play. Mixing it up all the time is a different matter, but this is the sort of thing I meant by murkiness. Commonly, slow play and stalling are like porn – hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

If I promise to split the prizes in the Swiss for a concession, and no judge is around, is it not still bribery? Slow play exists independently of a judge calling it slow play. Slow play is the same as the ethical good, in that regard. It exists, in some mysterious form, and we are all asked to determine if something is in the set of "slow play". There is no simple system for determining it, but generally, you need to say "Am I getting bored watching this?", because the answer to that is the same answer to "Should I tell them to play faster?"

That's why all this is discussed so much, and why stalling and slow play are in the floor rules. As you say, while a match is won by the first player to win 2 games, a match that goes to time is won by the player with the most wins, and is otherwise drawn. Because of that, the temptation is there to play slowly when you're ahead or it's even (game count), and your opponent is in a better position (a nebulous concept, admittedly). The stated reason for the policy is so that, as much as feasible at least, people win by playing Magic rather than the clock.

The clock is a design constraint. Good players play the clock, as well as playing Magic. However, stalling and slow play are still not allowed. You aren't allowed to force the time to expire just so you can 1-0 all of your matches.

Right, but is it not possible to "slow down" and yet still be playing at an "appropriate speed"? If you have been playing lightning fast and decide to slow down the pace so that you're resolving spells and shuffling at a moderate pace (at the judge's disgression), there's nothing wrong with that.

Why are you taking this personally? I'm not intending my comment to be a condemnation of you. There is nothing wrong with slowing down, as long as you are playing at an appropriate speed. I stated before, and I'll state again that slowing down is one indication that a player might be stalling. It doesn't mean that a player is stalling.

A real life situation that happened to me:
I'm playing Legacy against a guy who Parises to one with only a few minutes left on the clock. I call the judge over because my opponent Parised to one. The judge says "You aren't going to get it any more random by shuffling." when he Parises to two or so. He draws his card, and the judge states "You don't have many options, so your turns had better be lightning-fast."

[dicemanx]

Why are you taking this personally? I'm not intending my comment to be a condemnation of you. There is nothing wrong with slowing down, as long as you are playing at an appropriate speed. I stated before, and I'll state again that slowing down is one indication that a player might be stalling. It doesn't mean that a player is stalling.

I have no idea why you would think that I am taking this personally. In fact, I was not responding to your comments when you quoted me, but Godder's. Your third sentence is stating exactly what my argument was: its perfectly acceptable to change the pace of your play if you all of a sudden have to transition from "trying to win" to "trying not to lose", so long as you are still playing at a reasonable pace. In fact, the judge cannot base his assessment of stalling based on prior pace of play, or whether you have any way to win - all he can assess is that for a given decision you are not taking an unreasonable amount of time.

The judge also has to be careful when making an assessment based on cards you hold in hand. For instance, lets say you have a seven land hand, and yet you pause for 10-20 seconds to "consider" a play. It might be critical to try to sell to your opponent that you have business in hand. This actually happened in a match of mine a couple of years ago - I was playing Keeper-Oath against classical Keeper, and by mid game I had all of my win conditions StPed. I knew that he had one remaining win condition in his deck, but in order to secure the draw I had to try to discourage him from resolving his draw spells or win condition. I was holding junk in my hand (Moxes and lands mostly), so I had to bluff that I had some action. I still played at a fairly brisk pace, but it wasn't an automatic "draw mana source, pass right away". The plan worked since my opponent was unaware of the time on the clock, and we ended up drawing because he didn't resolve his win condition in time, and played the latter half of the game scared that I would draw some big bomb and win.

[forests failed you]

Guys, the more moral question is this-



Assuming you have no way to win, your opponent does not have time to win (and looks as if he would win given time), and you're not in contention for anything[/B], do you concede?


This situation came up with me being on the positive side against a U/r Fish player at the World side event in 2004 San Fran.  I was playing Keeper (at x-1-1, a loss or a draw would eliminate both of us and a win out would likely make top 8), and had like 4 angel tokens in play, a full hand, and the opponent having 0 mana in play, with him at 22 life or so.  I've clearly got the game won, but couldn't finish before turns were over.  I offered to have him concede, and he did so.  Afterward, I split some of my prize with him (with NO[/B] agreements made before hand- I swear to god, I gave it to him cause I wanted him to have it).



Was this done morally on both sides?

I like the way that this worked out for you. I feel the exact same way.  I'd much rather at least one of us make top eight than both draw out of contention. 

Any time that anybody has ever conceeded to me in the swiss where I needed a win to advance I have always split my prize winnings with them afterwards.  Also, keep in mind I have never ever offered to split before hand.  It just seems like a given that if somebody would be willing to conceed and give you the ability to win that you would want to repay them with splitting the prize afterwards.  Especially, since you would have won nothing at all and not made top eight had they not been willing to scoop the match. 

A lot of times if it looks like game three may end in a draw because of time.  Before the match starts I offer my opponent this option:  "Look a draw isn't going to help either of us, and is probably just as bad as a loss.  I propose that if the match goes to time the person who looks like they are going to lose conceed so that one of us can at least advance into the top eight." and then they either agree or disagree.  And hopefully in good conscience keep their word.

This has worked out fairly well for me and I have always kept my word, and for the most part my opponents have kept their word and all has worked out well.  Only a few times has it come down to a point where we went to time and I would have won and my opponent decided not to conceed.  To which I was mildly irritated, but there is nothing you can do about it besides not offer them the same option next time.