KillerB wrote:Concedes and makes the final four.... Looks like Kevin did what's best for business.
Good man.
Not necessarily good. The catch is that Kevin knew that even with an FL he'd make the final four. So by conceding he was attempting to put Jeremy in the final four as well (or giving him as good a chance as possible to get into the final four), essentially giving Jeremy an unearned advantage by happening to have been paired against Kevin in the last round when Kevin was already sure of advancing.
That Jeremy didn't make the final four is of no consequence here; the point is that there was an attempt to alter the results of the event in a particular player's favour in a manner other than playing Trek.
In some games, that could be grounds for DQing Kevin.
In fact, if I were the TD, I'd be looking into Collusion per the Code of Conduct:
C2. Collusion [L4]: Collusion is defined as the collaboration (or attempted collaboration) of one or more players to subvert a game’s natural result. There must be sufficient evidence of the collaboration when issuing this penalty.
Examples: Offering an opponent compensation to concede or play poorly in a game, reporting predetermined results of a game, or attempting to bribe the TD to change a game’s result.
EDIT:
Obviously, I'm not the TD and I don't know the facts on the ground. An investigation for Collusion, never mind a finding thereof, is for the TD to conduct at their sole discretion.