Welcome back everyone! This week's scenario is bronze, so it's directed at those who are just beginning their studies in the IPG. If you have read the IPG more than a couple times, or have worked multiple events at Competitive REL, please wait until Thursday to contribute to or help guide the discussion.

So… Where is he? - BRONZE

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=933

You're walking the floor at a PTQ when you notice a table with only one player. You glance at the clock and see that just over 10 minutes have elapsed, so you step in, pick up the match slip, and ask the player across from you “Are you Anton or Nikolai?” He replies “Oh, Nikolai's here. We've played game one already. He saw I was going to sideboard and I think he went to get a soda.” What do you do?

Nikolai should get a warning because of Tournament Error — Slow Play.

A player gets up from his seat to look at standings or goes to the bathroom without permission of an official.

edit: After thinking it over at work, I would start with questions regarding Deck/etc of Nikolai. Also if he did ask another judge if he is allowed to get a soda.

Edited Johannes Wagner (Dec. 5, 2013 01:15:12 PM)

I would ask Anton (the player still there) a few questions first.
1) “So who won the first game?”
2) “What kind of deck was Nikolai playing, what are you playing?”
3) “How long has he been gone?”

If Anton won the first game, I would wait for Nikolai to return and issue him the Slow Play Error. I would explain to Nikolai that it is unfair to make Anton wait and that the matches are timed.

If Nikolai won the first game, I would investigate if Nikolai left to eat up the clock. If this is the case then it should be Unsporting Conduct Stalling.

The Unsporting Conduct might be harder to prove at this point in time, but it might be prudent to keep an eye on Nikolai in the later rounds. If he does this again or something similar we have a pattern.

I agree with Kenneth's questions that probably should be asked. If they really did play game one, then this isn't an issue with Tardiness, but Nikolai is slowing the match by leaving without notifying a judge and thereby also taking an unreasonable time between games of the match. (If Anton was able to make his sideboarding decisions, shuffle up his deck and “present” it to the opponent that isn't present, then Nikolai should be similarly ready for game two.

It's not mentioned in the scenario what round we're in - if this is round one (or another early round), it's more likely that Nikolai just didn't know what was/wasn't acceptable and a Warning for Slow Play covers it. If this is a later round, another investigative line might be if to see if this happened in any earlier rounds. We could just ask Nikolai if he has left the table between games in previous matches, or if we strongly suspect foul play, we could check with other judges or Nikolai's previous opponents. That's a pretty serious line to take, though, so I'd have to be pretty confident this wasn't just an honest mistake to start down that road.

The questions about the current match seem fine, though. We have to wait for Nikolai to return, anyway, so we may as well chat with Anton.

I may have missed something obvious but it seems to me that nothing in this scenario tells us that Nikolai did NOT ask permission from another judge to go and get a drink, just one minute ago. Then perhaps the first question that Anton should be asked is whether Nikolai sought for such a permission, isn't it?

Thanks to everybody who participated this week! While the IPG says players not in their seats at 10 minutes into the round will be given a match loss, this pertains to players who have been absent since the beginning of the round. A player leaving their match in progress without a tournament official's permission is guilty of slow play. The absent player will receive a warning, and the players will have two additional turns should their match go to extra time.

Kenneth Woo made a very good point that we'd like to highlight: If Nikolai won game one, this has a chance of being USC- Stalling. When Nikolai returns, a quick investigation to try to determine his motivations for leaving is a good idea.

Originally posted by Patrick Vorbroker:

Kenneth Woo made a very good point that we'd like to highlight: If Nikolai won game one, this has a chance of being USC- Stalling. When Nikolai returns, a quick investigation to try to determine his motivations for leaving is a good idea.

How might this investigation begin? What should one consider asking each player?

First ask the player where he has been and explain he hasn't been in his seat so you have to give him a warning.
Than find out why he had to do this during game time. (couldn't it wait for in between rounds)
Find out why he didn't call a judge
Ask details what he exactly did, if he was stopped by a queue at the bar or toilets if it really took him a long time
Explain how you feel about it and that you consider stalling as well because he won the first game.
Get a feeling on how he reacts to all of your questions. You should also have a story from his opponent by the time he is back. The fact that in this KP Scenario Anton doesn't really know what Nikolai is doing is suspicious. Confront him with why he didn't tell his opponent what he was going to do. Again remind him that makes it even more suspicious.

Granted in this case mostly you won't conclude it's stalling because a savvy player will indeed be able to give “good answers”. But it's good to investigate and you never know where his story doesn't match.

PS. You can always try and check his story with the barkeeper in case you want to be sure.