TIE Breaker for finals

The issue is, like Boris said, that you can have a situation where only ONE of the players in the duel is fighting for the win. Since B can't win he or she might as well just fold and go for a beer despite the results still being up in the air.
I do agree with the counterpoint that promoting wall decks is unhealthy for the finals though.

M.Schumacher wrote:

I dont understand the problem. If the top seated player has 2 VP, and no other player can gain 2,5 VP or more the game is over. All players have an already determined finishing spot, e.g. Top Seat wins, all other non-winning finalists tie for second place. Stop the game and drink beer.

Player C can still get a GW 3. C is the player who enters the duel with 1VP. That is the problem: C's game is not over, but he has no one else to play against.

I would agree if that situation occured from the start. But I don't see an issue if the situation occurs after three players have been ousted (the same way that you can't win anymore after a player has collected 3 vp).
Players should wake up before such a situation arises and do things to prevent it. It shouldn't be prevented by tournament rules.

Again the problem is not judging who deserves to win or not, or a simple mechanical one: how does B play the duel? A simple coin toss is probably more robust than any deterministic measure to break ties.

Non-existant user wrote:

Player C can still get a GW 3. C is the player who enters the duel with 1VP. That is the problem: C's game is not over, but he has no one else to play against.

This is a primary concern for the Player who is top seated with 2VP, not for the player that has already lost the final. If you are top seated, gain 2 VP and get ousted and then allow a Player who can potentially win the game play 1 on 1 against a player who has nothing to win or loose then you are putting your success in the finals in the hands of a player with no motivation to play to win.
You should have played that table differently.