This situation happened at the GP Day 2 in Montreal yesterday. I found it rather controversial but I am pretty sure many of you have encountered similar scenarios recently and thus I would like to share (hear opinions)

Amanda has a Spirit of the Labyrinth (Each player may only draw once card each turn) in play, has already drawn a card and plays Stratus Walk (When this enters the battlefield, draw a card) on it. She announces “draw trigger on the stack”. Norin answers with “The trigger resolves”.
She then proceeds and draws a card after which Norin immediately calls a Judge.

The conversation above is the exact wording that was used. On questioning Norin states he expected her to draw an additional card but both players confirm he has clearly only confirmed the trigger not the drawing of a card.

What would you do?

Moved to Competative REL.

Nathan Long
Wizard.Com Boards NetRep

For the infraction to not be considered GPE-DEC, the opponent needs to acknowledge the draw before it happens. Because Norin didn't confirmed any draw but only the trigger, and also because no other GPE or CPV has been committed before the draw, it is DEC.

On the other side, Norin let her draw on purpose, probably knowing that she would get a GPE-DEC for doing so, even if both players confirm that he has only confirmed the trigger, not the draw. Norin said himself he expected her to draw. This clearly meets the criteria for a Unsuporting Conduct - Disqualifcation. Norin used his actions to gain an advantage (purposely let her draw so he can call a judge and have a free win) and he was also aware that the move Amanda would do was illegal, so what he's doing by letting her break the rules tells us that he knows he's doing something illegal too (letting a player violates the CR).

Amanda will carry her game loss to her next match while Norin will be DQ.

Originally posted by Samuel Tremblay:

Norin said himself he expected her to draw. This clearly meets the criteria for a Unsuporting Conduct - Disqualifcation. Norin used his actions to gain an advantage (purposely let her draw so he can call a judge and have a free win) and he was also aware that the move Amanda would do was illegal, so what he's doing by letting her break the rules tells us that he knows he's doing something illegal too (letting a player violates the CR).

From the IPG's definition for USC–Cheating: “A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.”

Which of those things do you think Norin has done?

Sounds to me like the letter of the law is GPE-DEC for Amanda, if both players do indeed confirm that it was only acknowledgement of the trigger, not the drawing of the card. I feel like it's more likely that Amanda would have been under the impression that Norin's acknowledgement was of both the trigger and the drawn card, though.

However, this seems like a pretty shady on Norin's part. I'd have a very hard time buying that he wasn't aware the infraction was about to occur, and generally policy tries to avoid allowing these sorts of gotcha plays to occur. I can't convince myself that Norin has committed any infraction, but I'd definitely have a talk with him about sportsmanship regardless.

Day 2 means we're at Professional REL, and we hold players to an even higher standard, so I'm easily OK with the GL conceptually, and no infraction for Norin. (I've no experience with Pro REL though, so maybe I'm making a bad assumption?)

If this were Comp REL? I'm trying to decide if this is superior rules knowledge or superior word play. It's unclear from the scenario whether she understood him to be referring to the trigger initially, or came to that conclusion after having time to reflect. I know we generally favor the former, and disfavor the latter. At a GP though? I think it'd be allowable. I'm not thrilled with it, but I see no infraction.

Originally posted by Samuel Tremblay:

Norin let her draw on purpose, probably knowing that she would get a GPE-DEC for doing so, even if both players confirm that he has only confirmed the trigger, not the draw. Norin said himself he expected her to draw. This clearly meets the criteria for a Unsuporting Conduct - Disqualifcation. Norin used his actions to gain an advantage (purposely let her draw so he can call a judge and have a free win) and he was also aware that the move Amanda would do was illegal, so what he's doing by letting her break the rules tells us that he knows he's doing something illegal too (letting a player violates the CR).

Hello.
From MIPG 4. Unsporting Conduct.
Unsporting behavior is not the same as a lack of sporting behavior. There is a wide middle ground of “competitive” behavior that is certainly neither “nice” nor “sporting” but still doesn’t qualify as “unsporting.” The Head Judge is the final arbiter on what constitutes unsporting conduct.

Amanda has commited GRV-DEC (there was no confirmation from NAP about drawing cards). GL for her.
Norin has commited no infraction.

So the trigger from Stratus Walk is going to resolve under the current board state. Acknowledging the trigger resolving, even if it would do nothing under the game rules, is not a confirmation of drawing cards.

If Amanda had said “Draw for the trigger” and Norin replied “Draw your card” we actually have a CPV here. Spirit of the Labyrinth modifies the game rules, thus we get to look at communication policy.

This would then support the DEC downgrade, since a CPV occurred during the illegal action.

Did Norin chose his words carefully? Yes. Was he within the boundaries established by the IPG? I believe yes.

At Regular REL I'd probably have a brief word with Norin explaining that this isn't really in the spirit of Reg REL, but at Comp/Pro REL I see nothing inappropriate from Norin, and I don't see any infractions happening before the draw.

Both players communicated clearly in language that was not ambiguous or inaccurate. And confirming ‘the trigger resolves’ is very different from confirming a card draw. Norin just chose to respond in a way that carefully diverted attention away from the Spirit. There is something of a ‘gotcha’ feelbad to the situation that you don't want in a game of Magic, but this seems like a textbook case of ‘neither sporting nor unsporting conduct’ for Norin, and therefore a straightforward DEC for Amanda.

It'll be a useful lesson for Amanda that if you put a card forbidding extra draws and a card allowing extra draws in the same deck, you have to pay *real* close attention to how you play them.

At GP Montreal, I reckon there's a very good chance that both players spoke English as their native language. However what if neither players was a native English speakers (which happens all the time at European GPs)? Would anyone rule differently?

* Players may not use misleading statements to trick their opponent into making illegal plays. Players may not misrepresent to the opponent that an illegal play has occurred.
from Player Communication Guide / Toby Elliott

“The trigger resolves” couldn't be more technically correct. But it's misleading, and Norin knows this. Norin wants to make Amanda make an illegal play (draw a card off the trigger). He's not allowed to go this way.

Now, Norin thinks he is allowed to do it, which makes the situation better for him, I won't DQ him.
He didn't violate 4.1 either, so there's no TE-CPV committted.

In the end, I see Amanda asked for confirmation of the draw before she carried it out, so it's not GPE-DEC for Amanda
If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.
IPG GPE-DEC

Yes, we hold players to a higher standard at REL Prof, but it doesn't mean we allow sneaky communication that is aimed at the opponent committing an infraction, even if your communication is “technically correct”.

Edited Philip Böhm (March 18, 2014 10:47:14 AM)

Originally posted by Philip Böhm:

* Players may not use misleading statements to trick their opponent into making illegal plays.
from Player Communication Guide / Toby Elliott

Is it still true nowadays? This article you quoted was written in 2007… I see nothing in the four "rules govern player communication“ in the current MTR (§4.1) that would forbid Norin to say what he said. Moreover, he is not attempting to trick Amanda into making illegal plays (which would suppose she would not have made such an illegal play without Norin's ”trick", wouldn't it?), he is simply not preventing her from doing so by herself (am I hairsplitting?).

I would have considered Norin to communicate in a misleading way if the communication had been more like “Draw for Stratus Walk?” “It resolves.” In that case Amanda would be clearly looking for confirmation. But that didn't happen, Amanda only stated the trigger went on the stack, and I can't consider Norin's response to that as misleading.

Players with different native languages make things more difficult, but the rules are the same. Language issues can raise the bar for what is considered ‘clear communication’ but if the players agree to communicate in English then a decent level of language comprehension in terms of the rules can be expected from both players. It wouldn't change anything in this scenario in my opinion.

My first reaction to this post was “MTG is not Gotcha, warning and reverse the extra draw”. The temptation I then fall into is to find a way to back that up in the rules, which is the wrong order.

Going at it from first principles, I'm on the fence. What would save Amanda from a DEC game loss is the bit about “if the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card”, so to me the question is “does saying ‘the trigger resolves’ constitute confirmation?” And I'm not sure either way.

I think that confirming the trigger isn't a confirmation of drawing cards in any way.
Let's think about a Howling Mine trigger.
A ask: Mine trigger?
N: Ok.
A: Draw 3 cards. It's ok, you confirmed the trigger.

That's not confirmation of the draw.