If you make a statement about your creature as though the trigger was missed, the trigger was missed.

I think there is a reason that the IPG uses the word “represent” and not “state.” I see a lot of answers that say that “trade?” is not a statement of the current gamestate, but I certainly see it as a representation of such.

Given the assumption above that there are no cards in hand, you can't try to convince your opponent to trade based on the basis that they would both be destroyed as a result of combat.

TE-CPV, back up to the point of the incorrect information and investigate to see what the AP knows about the Communication Policy.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

If I attack with a Hill Giant and my opponent has a Woodland Changeling and a Griffin Canyon I can ask “trade?” even though the current P/T's don't indicate a trade.

If I put my opponent on a Titan's Strength, I can attack with my Hill Giant into a Traveling Philosopher and ask “trade?” to show my opponent I'm onto him, even though there might not even be a possibility for the creatures to trade.

Thus I would also say that saying “trade” is not representing anything incorrectly. Or the above scenarios would also not be allowed which seems strange to me.

Have you ever heard someone use “trade” like that? As a new Level 1 judge and shop owner, I have heard the term many times but never used unless something was being exchanged (killed/destroyed).

I'm actually with Toby on this. Trade is not defined as a shortcut in the MTG so there is no definition to what is and what is not “trading”. If I say “trade” suggesting an attack into a possible blocker and the NP doesn't like the “trade” (because let's be honest, it's a one-way trade ;)) than it's up to the NP to agree with the proposition or not. I agree that it's not very sportsmanlike but it's still within the boundaries of the game.

This sounds like Anna is trying to demonstrate a new shortcut by defining where the game state will end up after the shortcut: with both creatures dying in combat after one is declared as blocking the other. According to MTR 4.2 Tornament Shortcuts: “if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request”. Since anna was not clear at all in how she claimed the game state would end up, she violated this rule. I would need to investigate to understand whether or not she knew it was against this rule to do what she did. I suspect that she would have some idea that misrepresenting how a shortcut would end up would be illegal, and if that were the case, she has committed all the requirements for USC - Cheating. Off to the Dairy queen she goes.

If she convinces me she had no idea doing this would be illegal, then I would direct her specifically to be clear when announcing shortcuts in how you want priority to pass and where the game state should end up. This is not an infraction though, since it doesn't fit the definition of any other infractions. Note that I don't believe this is a CPV, because the Communication policy is very specific as to what is defined as free and derived information, and “how the game state will change given possible future actions” is no where in those definitions. I can see the argument that doing so implies certain facts about free and derived information, however there are many things that players can do to imply this kind of information without explicitly representing it (for example, attacking with a Tarmogoyf that is one point short of lethal into an empty board and asking the opponent to conceed), and I feel that what Anna did falls into this category.

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

I can see the argument that doing so implies certain facts about free and derived information, however there are many things that players can do to imply this kind of information without explicitly representing it …

I'm still not convinced that representations need to be explicit. If AP asks NAP how many cards he has in-hand and NAP holds up two cards while hiding a third under his left hand, he is representing 2 cards whether he did it explicitly or implicitly.

Originally posted by Cameron Bachman:

Darcy Alemany
I can see the argument that doing so implies certain facts about free and derived information, however there are many things that players can do to imply this kind of information without explicitly representing it …

I'm still not convinced that representations need to be explicit. If AP asks NAP how many cards he has in-hand and NAP holds up two cards while hiding a third under his left hand, he is representing 2 cards whether he did it explicitly or implicitly.

I think fanning out your hand to show only two cards of the three you actually have is pretty explicit. It's nonverbal rather than a verbal statement to that fact, but the action here doesn't make it any less explicit that the player is showing two cards as an answer to the very direct question.

Think about a slight modification to what's being said by Anna; she looks at Natalie's 2/2, says out loud “nah, I don't think you want to trade”, and attacks. Natalie blocks, thinking it is a trade, only to be reminded of the Spear (which, BTW, is on the board and available for her to keep track of on her own…) - would any of you debate that's a legal bluff?
(I certainly hope not!)

While it's a slight variation to just say “Trade?” and attack, how is it different in any material (policy-backed) way?

It's a valid bluff, albeit one that's likely to leave Natalie quite unhappy.

d:^D

i am glad to see some support foe no infraction here. I was in the definite minority in the original discussion and there was a lot of call for DQ, which I thought was way overboard. If judges can't agree on the legality of the statement, how can a player KNOW it is illegal? Since that is part of the requrement of USC - Cheating I can't imagine a DQ in thia spot.

If this happened to me as a player, I don't think I would even call a judge. I would say “sneaky trick.” and know to pay more attention in the future, it wouldn't even cross my mind that ot would be an infraction.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Think about a slight modification to what's being said by Anna; she looks at Natalie's 2/2, says out loud “nah, I don't think you want to trade”, and attacks. Natalie blocks, thinking it is a trade, only to be reminded of the Spear (which, BTW, is on the board and available for her to keep track of on her own…) - would any of you debate that's a legal bluff?
(I certainly hope not!)

While it's a slight variation to just say “Trade?” and attack, how is it different in any material (policy-backed) way?

It's a valid bluff, albeit one that's likely to leave Natalie quite unhappy.

d:^D

Scott, I think it is in fact materially different, although I think it is certainly a challenging distinction to explain and I thank you for bringing this up.

“Nah, I don't think you want to trade” is framed as though the monologue were internal. It does still suggest that trading is possible, which I still don't like a lot, but it is at least less direct and I wouldn't want to punish people for thinking out loud in this way. It's the kind of gamesmanship I wouldn't personally engage in, but I think it can be argued as not being a misrepresentation of the derived information fairly strongly because even though it contains ‘you’, it is the sort of statement that reads as self-directed and is also more likely to be referring to the possibility of a combat trick (because Anna does not need to communicate out loud that this is what she is thinking about if she is talking to herself).

“Trade?” has no such excuse. It is direct, it is clearly asking the opponent if they want to do something that is not possible without a combat trick given the current board state, and it is a reasonable assumption on Natalie's part that Anna is referring to the board state as it exists, not the possibility of a combat trick of which Anna has not communicated any consideration to her opponent. Since it is a reasonable assumption for Natalie that Anna is communicating to her that the two creatures would die upon combat damage with no intervention on her part, which is a misrepresentation of some portion of derived information (the creatures' characteristics and the Game Rules), this then constitutes a violation of MTR 4.1.

I understand that it's a subtle distinction, but I honestly do not feel comfortable with allowing “Trade?” in this situation because I feel that it's a long-term negative for the game, and I think you should really reconsider your position.

This is the sort of scenario where I would not fault any inexperienced player from walking away from the game after such a situation if the judge upheld it as a legal bluff, because I believe that player would be justified in believing that the judges were not interested in protecting her interests from dishonest players. An experienced player confronted with this situation probably wouldn't walk away, but they could easily become jaded and lose interest in making the community better.

Neither of these things really needs to happen, but if word gets around that “Trade?” is being treated as a legal bluff, I think we can reasonably expect “Trade?” to happen more often, because it is a way to be dishonest and not merely ‘tricky’ to your opponent without any fear of punishment, and experienced players could use “Trade?” to attempt to gain advantage any time they have a creature that would eat the opponent's creature in combat.

Originally posted by Byron Calver:

This is the sort of scenario where I would not fault any inexperienced player from walking away from the game after such a situation if the judge upheld it as a legal bluff, because I believe that player would be justified in believing that the judges were not interested in protecting her interests from dishonest players. An experienced player confronted with this situation probably wouldn't walk away, but they could easily become jaded and lose interest in making the community better.

I think we all totally agree with you that it is not nice to bluff like this. But the Competitive Magic Rules allow alot of stuff like this and I do not think that for example answering “What does this Esper Charm do again?” with “It is an Instant that cost UWB and destroys target enchantment” is better than the “Trade?”-thing considering sportsmanship, but it is and will probably be totally legal for a long time.

I am not saying that we should not try to give newer players a good experience, but rules on competitive are not focussed on newer players, theyre focussed on people that play to win, take the game serious on a competitive level and that know all the rules and documents.

So I agree totally that this whole thing is not nice, but this should not lead you to try to interpret the situation until you end up at the penalty your bad feeling about the situation tells you should be correct. Instead try to start at the IPG/MTR and if you cannot apply something intuitively to the situation it is probably legal.

Originally posted by Byron Calver:

I thank you for bringing this up

Originally posted by Byron Calver:

I think you should really reconsider your position

And, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Rest assured, it's already a very carefully considered position. The crafting of the Communication Policy and the continued improvements made since required untold hours, e-mails, discussions, etc. Bluffing has always been a fairly volatile topic; there are many who don't feel it should be a part of the game. However, it is a part of the game, within the guidelines defined in the MTR.
“Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.” Note that the (very carefully considered) wording is “current … and past … that still affect the game”. Nothing in there about future game states; as others have noted in this thread, future game states are different.

Think about that for a bit: how could we hold players to the same standards (Free/Derived, etc) when it comes to future game states? If I predict something (I might attack with everything) and you make it impossible (Cryptic Command, tap all your creatures), how could I be guilty of anything (other than being bad at predicting)?

Also, as others have noted, “Trade?” has no meaning in Magic. It is a common phrase, and it's very clear that Anna fully intends to have Natalie make an incorrect assumption about what will happen in the future - but it is not a violation of Player Communication, it's a valid bluff.

One key phrase in that section of the MTR to keep in mind: “expectations of both sporting and competitive players”. Sporting players may not like bluffing, but it remains competitive behavior that is allowed.

d:^D

I appreciate that you and the other high-level judges have certainly put an incredible effort into the policy, and I believe that it is almost perfect as written. I am a competitive player as well; I believe in bluffing, and I believe it is a part of the game (and frequently can be quite artfully performed). I respect your decision, and I acknowledge that the reasoning is sound. If I ever get called to a similar situation (and it's not just friends trolling me) I will rule in accordance with it. However, I would like to clarify my dissenting opinion.

I agree that most statements about future game states are entirely unreasonable to enforce. If Anna had a Giant Growth instead of a Spear of Heliod, I don't see an infraction. If Anna had a Spear and Natalie had a Bow of Nylea and just elected not to put a counter on her creature (perhaps wrongly assuming that it had deathtouch, or some other reason), that would be fine too. Heck, if the Spear were in play and there were a Ranger's Guile in Natalie's hand that Anna knows about, even that would give a perfectly reasonable justification for Anna to say “Trade?”

But this is not a statement about the possible future and how it can be made impossible. It is a statement about an impossible default future, in the sense that it is a question entirely about the characteristics of objects in public zones and how they would ordinarily interact within the rules of the game, both of which are derived information, in a situation where nothing that Anna could know about could reasonably make their statement true (barring the highly improbable corner case of Anna using her own cards in hand to force the trade, wherein I'd be surprised if anyone even calls for the judge).

I believe it is possible within the current MTR 4.1 framework to treat such ‘impossible default future’ statements as being simply about the derived information, and that is why I've been having trouble with this scenario. I don't think we need to classify this statement as being about a theoretical future game state when that seems to create a greater hazard (the risk of players abusing this to take advantage of others, potentially leading to those other players losing interest in the game and/or faith in judges) than treating it as being about derived information would likely create (players don't get to use this trick).

I understand that this interpretation is highly unlikely to be adopted, as you would need to contemplate unforeseen consequences of doing so (perhaps some otherwise innocuous statements might become inadvertant CPVs!), and because this case is presently fairly rare any sort of reassessment would be a very low priority. I just feel it necessary to register my concern that there does not seem to be a benefit to the present position that outweighs the potential downsides.

Originally posted by Leon Strauss:

So I agree totally that this whole thing is not nice, but this should not lead you to try to interpret the situation until you end up at the penalty your bad feeling about the situation tells you should be correct. Instead try to start at the IPG/MTR and if you cannot apply something intuitively to the situation it is probably legal.

Leon, you make a good point that every judge should keep in mind. I understand that you probably weren't privy to my involvement in the original thread in the Canadian judges' Facebook group when you wrote this paragraph, so you had to make some assumptions about my process based on my first response here, which are quite reasonable given that I forgot to provide adequate context to distinguish the quoted remarks (which were addressing my disappointment with the practical consequences of this ruling for the game) from my process in arriving to conclusions about the judge call itself.

I wish to assure you that I did not start from a gut feeling. I looked at the facts in the scenario, I reviewed the part of the IPG that could reasonably be related to it (TE - CPV) to see if it applies here, and I came to my conclusion based on my interpretation of the relevant MTR passage. I may have come to an interpretation that was not the officially endorsed one, but that's part of being a judge – I try, I make mistakes, and I learn. Hopefully I've learned something that I'll be able to carry forward to future situations.

Edited Byron Calver (Dec. 8, 2013 02:48:54 PM)

I would ask Anna what she meant by “Trade”.

Scenario 1:
Anna says: My opponent has Bow of Nylea, I was asking if my opponent was going to block, add a counter, thus causing a trade
I say: sounds fine

Scenario 2:
Anna says: I was asking my opponent if she wanted to trade her creature for 3 life
Then I'd inquire further how often Anna says things like this, cause it sounds so improbable that I'd suspect a (Lying-to-me based) DQ to on the horizon.

Scenario 3:
Anna says: I wanted my opponent to think that blocking would cause a trade, because my cub is a 2/2 (even though it's not)
I say: I treat this in no way differently than just saying “My cub is 2/2”. If you were trying to convey that exact message (and in fact that message was received), then there is no try here. You DID convey it. I don't care if it was through English, German, Sign Language, hand gestures, sonnets, or allegories.

It's unlikely, but possible, that I'd give a DQ (it'd depend further on what Anna says, and the ‘vibe’ I get). I'd more likely issue CPV, and rewind.
(If not the Head Judge, clearly those statements would read: ‘tell the HJ about a potential DQ-worthy offense’ … and ‘ask Head Judge for permission to rewind’, respectively)

Scenario 4:
There are no on-board tricks and no cards in hand for either player.
I'd be extremely hard pressed to not consider this like Scenario 3. Regardless of what Anna says she meant.

Scenario 5:
Anna says: it's clear my opponent has a particular combat trick in hand that would cause a trade. I know it. She knows it, I'm just showing off.
Depending on the specificity (how does Anna know this, for example), I'd feel more or less comfortable about it. If I believe Anna to a sufficient degree, then I say that's fine.

I say “Nice Jedi Mind Trick, Anna. Continue play.” (Well, not literally. Approximately.)

We should not be issuing CPV here unless we're comfortable issuing it regardless of what specific creatures are involved or what cards, on-board tricks, and/or mana either player had available, in their decks, or that even exist in the environment. (And I'm definitely not.)

Issuing CPV requires that we interpret “Trade?” to be a definite statement of “My creature has power equal to or greater than your creature's toughness, and toughness less than or equal to your creature's power”, and it's just…not. It only seems reasonable in this particular corner case because everything else was carefully excluded from the corner. As soon as we step out of the corner and look the general case, with such possibilities as multiple potential blockers, multiple attackers, relevant creature abilities, open mana, cards in hand, on-board tricks, and so on, it quickly becomes apparent just how ludicrous such a narrow definition of “Trade?” is there.

Edited Callum Milne (Dec. 8, 2013 08:42:22 PM)