Albert and Niels are playing their second game and there is only ten minutes remaining in the round.

Albert is playing burn and has won the first game. He is at 2 life, has a Eidolon of the Great Revel in play, and 48 cards in his library.

Niels is playing Splinter Twin. He is at 2 life, has a Deceiver Exarch in play, 42 cards in his library. There are 3 Splinter Twin and 2 Cryptic Command in his graveyard.

Both players are eager to save time, and Albert is willing to concede now if his opponent has a fourth Splinter Twin in his library. Can we help?

Edited Florian Horn (Feb. 11, 2015 03:28:01 PM)

I don't understand the question - why is it relevant that there is a fourth Splinter Twin in the library? Surely between the 3 Splinter Twins and 2 Cryptics Niels has the game locked up?

Regardless of relevance, no, you can't help.
________________________________
From: Mark Mc Govern <forum-16167-6849@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 7:14:13 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Can we help with a conditional concession (Competitive REL)


I don't understand the question - why is it relevant that there is a fourth Splinter Twin in the library? Surely between the 3 Splinter Twins and 2 Cryptics Niels has the game locked up?

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/103626/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16167/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16167/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Mark: I am terribly bad at writing scenarios. The cards were supposed to be in his graveyard, so the fourth Splinter Twin would be the only out for Niels. I edited the OP.

Andrew: Thanks.

Ah I see. While there are any number of ways the players could legally sort this out themselves (cracking a fetchland is the easiest; playing lightning fast draw-go is another option), it is not our place to offer up suggestions. They'll have to decide what to do without our help, and ideally without breaking any rules relating to improperly determining a winner.

If someone bluffs regarding hidden information to get a concession, it is upon the opponent to determine trust, not ours to verify for them.


Andy



________________________________
From: Mark Mc Govern <forum-16167-6849@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 7:43 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Can we help with a conditional concession (Competitive REL)


Ah I see. While there are any number of ways the players could legally sort this out themselves (cracking a fetchland is the easiest; playing lightning fast draw-go is another option), it is not our place to offer up suggestions. They'll have to decide what to do without our help, and ideally without breaking any rules relating to improperly determining a winner.

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/103638/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16167/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16167/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Presumably the players could agree to a shortcut where they draw discard until they get to the end / splinter twin and then fast-forward the process?

To expand a bit on Andy's Official answer…

Albert says “if you've draw another Splinter Twin, you got this - are you playing 4? If you are, I'll concede.”
Niels says “yep, I have a 4th one - I don't like the lists that only run 3, too inconsistent for me.”
Albert says “OK, you got it” and scoops.
–> That's fine, no reason for us to get involved.

Albert and Niels start with the same first two statements;
Albert turns to us and says “can you check his list, and tell me if…”
We say “Sorry, that's information that I can not provide for you.”

Albert says the same thing as above.
Niels turns to us and says “can I just show him the 4th Twin in my library?”
We have to say “no, and please don't intentionally look at cards that the game won't normally let you see…”

Albert and Niels say the same things as the first example;
I'm thinking “geez, you're playing Burn and he's at 2 life - I think it's silly to concede here…”;
I'm not saying anything of the kind… ;)

d:^D

The reason the burn player is considering conceding at all is because his own Eidolon of the Great Revel will kill him before his lethal burn spell resolves, has he too is on 2.

But yeah - we can't help them reach a decision.

Silly me, thinking I'd be playing Stoke the Flames… ;)

I understand that I can not assist with a request “can you tell me if my opponent has X on his decklist?”. I would be revealing hidden information.

But how about the other way around? “Can you confirm for my opponent that I have X on my decklist?” Here, it's the player revealing the hidden information, and they are just asking me to confirm it.

It's hidden information they don't have access to. What would you do if you
said yes to that, picked up the deck and didn't find the card you're
looking for?

There's no problem with the player sharing hidden information that they
have access to. There's no problem with the player saying something about
hidden information that may be true or not. I don't think we should assist
either way.

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

There's no problem with the player sharing hidden information that they have access to.

Right - remember, that might be their hand, or cards they exiled face-down, or even their sideboard. They don't (normally) have access to their library, so what Federico says doesn't mean they can show their library to their opponent. (As noted earlier by Mark, cracking a “fetch land” would allow a player to search with the cards face-up, so the opponent can witness their impending doom…)

d:^D

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

(cracking a fetchland is the easiest; playing lightning fast draw-go is another option), it is not our place to offer up suggestions. They'll have to decide what to do without our help,

Could you expand on this? While I understand the policy behind the official answer that we can't give them that information, I don't understand why we can't point out the option to reveal by cracking a fetchland. There are similar cases where we can give advice on how players can get what they want within the framework of policy–for instance, I would answer “Judge, we both mulliganed twice, can we agree to go to seven cards?” with “you can declare the current game a draw at any time and start the next game with the same player on the play and new seven card hands,” rather than the technically correct answer of “no, you can't.”

For me it's uncomfortably close to “judge, I can't figure out how to win this game - can you offer a suggestion given these cards?”

However, there's a pretty good chance that they'll figure it out through the answers you give to their questions.
“Judge, can't I just show my opponent my library even if I don't look?”
“No”
“Why not?”
“It's hidden information. You're not entitled to reveal hidden information that you don't have access to.”
“But what if I was able to look through my library, like with a fetchland?”
“Then yes, you could”


I'd be fairly confidant that the discussion would go that way.