Let’s assume that someone initiates a competition involving 20 awards. But he can’t see the end of the process, because someone else has replaced him just at the last moment.
Those who were candidates in the case of the first, and due to the fact that the second one announced that he wants to cancel the competition as such, they decide to seemingly alter their attitude departing the competition.
The competition ended up having only three awards.
The second one, who was unable to cancel it entirely, delays it as much as he can.
Meanwhile, some of the candidates result to other types of contacts with those who remained official candidates.
Consequently, obtaining an indirect access to the awards and in this manner avoiding the antipathy of the second.
Finally the competition had to come to an end, much to the dismay of the second one.
Three candidates together obtain one of the three prizes.
One of them is a candidate regarding two other awards as well.
And it’s he who creates an alliance with the other candidate.
Finally, the second one who wanted to cancel the competition, will see him who he didn’t want to get any awards, to do so without taking part in the competition.
This strategic scenario is not factual for someone who’s unaware about game theory, whatever he might be saying.