Spectator comes to a table where his friend, Player, is playing. The Player's opponent is currently resolving an ability that lets him tutor for something in his deck.

The following exchange takes place:
Spectator: “Hi, Player. What's going on?”
Player: “(explains board state) Now, my opponent searches his library for something that would help him.”
Spectator: “Well, if he had 2 Bolts in hand, maybe he could search for (some card).”
Player: “That wouldn't help him. See, (reason).”
Spectator: “Ok, but what if he searched for (some other card), instead?”
Player: “No, I would win even then.”
Opponent: “Hey, judge, stop them from doing this!”

Did anybody commit Outside Assistence, and if yes, who?

Assuming that I heard the entire conversation (so there's no lack of clarity about what was said, only about the infraction), I would rule that the spectator committed Outside Assistance and investigate the player for cheating.

For the spectator, the moment he mentions a possibility of his opponent's hand, that can fall into “play advice” territory. When he's outlining a specific line of play for the opponent, that is *definitely* play advice. If the player had not thought about that line, then it might lead him to reevaluate his options.

A similar example in which I've actually ruled OA involved a relatively stalled-out game where a player forgot that he had a Kessig Wolf Run that he could use to swing for a few points of damage each turn. After a few turns back-and-forth, but before the game state changed significantly, a spectator asked the player “Why didn't you use Wolf Run?” In this case, there was clear strategic advice to use Wolf Run, even if it wasn't directly phrased as such.

For the player, he hasn't actually sought out advice from the spectator, only responded to what the spectator said, but I would investigate the player to see if he realized what was going on, because I would normally expect him not to accept this advice. At the very least, I'd instruct him to be more careful and get a judge involved if this happens again.

I think the spectator gave Outside assistance at the point where he talked about a possible gamestate.
That is a clear cut OA in my opinion.
The player should have called a Judge at that point.
Now the player continued a discussion with that spectator and I'd need to have a firm chat with player about his intentions.
If the player was unaware his fault, I'd give them both Outside assistance because of this discussion they had.

Concur with the consensus - hypothesizing about card the opponent might be able to get is outside assistance.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Concur with the consensus - hypothesizing about card the opponent might be able to get is outside assistance.

Agree with agreement. The player may or may not be cognizant of those potential cards, and I believe that is a testable skill in tournament Magic. Having someone suggest things you could/should consider is Outside Assistance.

Alex de Bruijne
If the player was unaware his fault, I'd give them both Outside assistance because of this discussion they had.

That's an interesting stance. We usually look for intent, and in this case the player did not solicit the information, so I'm not sure that this follows what I would consider the “classic” view of Outside Assistance. However, he engaged in the discussion, so I'm curious to see if anyone else thinks that constitutes OA.

I agree with Sean. I'm personally likely here to give the “you shouldn't even consider having the conversation” talk unless I think he knew better. My expectation is for the player to say to the spectator “we shouldn't be talking about this.”

Kind of seems like the Spectator was trying to provide OA, and flailing and failing quite amusingly.

But the player he's talking to - not the opponent - should be the one to say “hey, shut up, dude”. I'd be tempted to give OA to the spectator, and a stern glare to the player (stop it earlier, next time!).

d:^D

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

Spectator: “Well, if he had 2 Bolts in hand, maybe he could search for (some card).”

If we look at the opponent's hand, and he actually does have two Bolts in hand, does this change our thinking at all towards the player he is talking to? It might still just be a stern talking to, but I'd think he'd have to convince us that this wasn't a prearranged communication between the two of them to pass private/hidden information.

Does it also make us consider not just an OA penalty to the spectator, but also perhaps a Cheating investigation? Or is Cheating only something that can be applied to what someone does in their own games (since they must be seeking to gain advantage)?

@Sean: I don't understand what possible cheat you might investigate, could you please elaborate?

Not drawing attention to an infraction in the match. If the player is aware that the spectator shouldn't be asking those questions, that could stray into Cheating.

Oddly I feel it's the Opponent that's getting the most information here.

"If he searches for you lose"
Opponent now searches for

I mean it would be a con worthy of a movie, but theoretically you could have the spectator discussing the game state with Player A with the intention of giving advice (indirectly) to Player B.

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

Oddly I feel it's the Opponent that's getting the most information here.

That may be true, but the spectator is the one doing the talking, so he gets the infraction OA if its deemed strategic relevant to the judge (which it is for me, and what the consensus seems to be here).
The opponent didn't engage in the conversation, and asked it to stop. Yes, he might have done so earlier, but he certainly hasn't solicited the advice, and I'd not give him the OA penalty.
Whether the player that started talking should recieve the OA penalty: He might. The IPG is a bit fuzzy on this. The definition of the penalty says:

“Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others”

While in the philosophy it says: “Any strategy advice, play advice, or construction advice from an external source is considered outside assistance.”

Usually, the spectator gets the OA warning when they uttered some strategic information, but it's often a lot harder to see whether the player actually sought out advice. Since the player started talking to his friend about the current game of Magic, it can be argued it's seeking advice. He certainly expected his friend to answer.
Reading this line from the philosophy section, we should ML both players, since they both recieved and could benefit from the information from the spectator. That clearly is not the intended outcome.

Note that in practice, it's relatively easy to get confirmation that the spectator actually gave advice (mentioning a card name relevant to play around is clearly enough), while it's harder to determine whether advice was asked for. These questions on reliability of evidence are relevant to the decision on the floor, but we can disregard that here on the forum, where the OP states as fact what was said.

Regarding cheating - you should always be on the lookout for cheating. P asking for advice knowing it's illegal. O waiting to call a judge, so his opponent gets a ML for sure. Spectator already out of contention taking the chances on a DQ to help out his friend. However, in reality, most of these OA things are because people blurt out something without thinking, don't know the penalty Outside Assistance exists, or simply don't care, because they'll win the game anyway with the card they're searching.

The player was not *seeking* OA, his error was not stopping the spectator right away. The opponent's behavior was reasonable, as he probably couldn't believe the conversation would continue - and when it became apparent that the spectator wasn't going to stop, the opponent spoke up.

There really isn't a lot more to this scenario, and some of the more severe reactions concern me.

Here's a simple thought for y'all to keep in mind:

There's more Cheating happening than we're able to catch;
There's less Cheating happening than we're able to imagine.

Be alert, but don't begin your own “witch hunt”…

d:^D