As double-faced cards will be returning in the next limited environment, I wanted to clarify how they function at Competitive and Professional REL drafts, especially during top 8. The new policy states that double-faced cards are public information at all times. At the same time, players are expected to take every precaution to keep the contents of their picks hidden. This seems at odds even with the clarification that you cannot hide double-faced cards, at least in a competitive environment.

If a drafter at either level opened or drafted a double-faced card, how public is that information? Does it need to always be visible in the pack as it is being passed around or otherwise verbally announced? Does it always need to be visible in the player's pool who picks it? (The former I'm not sure about, the latter seems like a “Yes” based on the update)

At competitive and professional REL attempts to gain information about other players' picks is very serious and can result in a disqualification, correct? If they have to visibly look at other players and their stack of picks to obtain public information, wouldn't this come with the risk of disqualification?

My main reason for bringing this question back as soon as I brushed up on the new documents is that there is a GP in Fort Worth next weekend that is Magic Origins limited.

Rich, I believe the MTR has you covered.

Originally posted by MTR 7.7, Paragraph 2:

Players may not reveal the front face of their card selections or the contents of their current packs to other participants in the draft and must make a reasonable effort to keep that information from the sight of other players. Players are not permitted to reveal hidden information of any kind to other participants in the draft regarding their own picks or what they want others to pick. (Exception: This does not apply to double-faced cards, both faces of which may be revealed at any time during a draft.)

Bold for emphasis mine.

Yes, I am familiar with that clause in the MTR. It handles it quite well at Regular REL events, but it's the application at competitive REL or higher level events where enforcement is much stricter that I'm wondering about. In addition, there is language in the Wizards article reintroducing DFC for draft that implies that you *must* reveal that information and can take no action to hide it (link - under Drafting Double-Faced Cards). Even though that is not in an official policy document, it's very different language to say that you must reveal something rather than that you may reveal it.

What level of effort should be made to make that information known?

For example, the player next to you drafts a Lilliana face up in their pool. You look over at it to see which DFC they have but, oops, the pack in their hand is within your line of sight. This could result in a disqualification for attempting to gain information about another players' picks (USC - Cheating), even though you were only looking for information you are entitled to.

Second example, there is a Chandra in a pack being passed. This is, say, pack 3 so the 3 people that pass it are firmly not in red. While we've determined that the person who does pick Chandra should (must?) display the card in their pool, do the people who do not pick the card have to make it known that she is in the pack they are considering?

A third, somewhat extreme example, you draft a Gideon and place it on top of your pick pile. This card is completely visible to you during the remainder of the draft, alongside all of your other DFC picks (if you get particularly lucky). I doubt any judge would assign an infraction for you looking at your picks outside of the review period, but if they did it could technically be supported by the rules.

Edited Rich Marin (July 16, 2015 09:41:52 PM)

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

For example, the player next to you drafts a Lilliana face up in their pool. You look over at it to see which DFC they have but, oops, the pack in their hand is within your line of sight. This could result in a disqualification for attempting to gain information about another players' picks (USC - Cheating), even though you were only looking for information you are entitled to.

Accidentally seeing someone's pack isn't Cheating - remember that Cheating requires several components:

Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

(Emphasis mine)

What you've described is a simple Limited Procedure Violation - issue the warning, remind the player with the planeswalker to hide his or her pack a little more carefully, or perhaps to move his or her picks pile a little further away, and have them continue on.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

In addition, there is language in the Wizards article reintroducing DFC for draft that implies that you *must* reveal that information and can take no action to hide it (link - under Drafting Double-Faced Cards). Even though that is not in an official policy document, it's very different language to say that you must reveal something rather than that you may reveal it.

Where in the linked article does it imply that you *must* reveal the information? I see it mention that you can't try to hide it, but that's not the same thing. I could be failing to read properly, though.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

A third, somewhat extreme example, you draft a Gideon and place it on top of your pick pile. This card is completely visible to you during the remainder of the draft, alongside all of your other DFC picks (if you get particularly lucky). I doubt any judge would assign an infraction for you looking at your picks outside of the review period, but if they did it could technically be supported by the rules.

Given that the MTR applies at all REL, and that the language “at any time” is used to refer to when DFCs may be revealed during a draft, I am assuming that DFCs don't fall under the “don't review your picks” portion of policy. It is possible I am incorrect and other sections of the MTR supercede that statement surrounding DFCs, but it would be really hard not to see your DFC pick when it is the top card of your draft pile and you are looking at another pack.

Edited Jacob Milicic (July 16, 2015 10:14:42 PM)

Accidentally seeing someone's pack isn't Cheating - remember that Cheating requires several components:
Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
•The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

True - the awareness and actual attempt does need to be there. However, there is advantage in seeing another player's picks - accidentally or not. At a competitive level draft, I've been told that players are advised to keep their eyes on their own packs. The presence of DFC in the format gives a legal reason for players to do something they're normally not supposed to do - look towards other players' packs and pools. This could legally glean information about the draft that could, to the experienced drafter, be useful information.

Please see below for the excerpt from the site - the relevant line bolded.

Drafting Double-Faced Cards

If you're drafting—and you really should be drafting—taking a double-faced card works a little differently than drafting any other card. Unlike other cards you draft, double-faced cards are visible to the other drafters. You can't try and hide it. You can put it on your pile of drafted cards front-face or back-face up. External whoops of delight are discouraged, but giggling to yourself internally is cool.

EDIT: Yes - the Gideon example I think stretches the definitions of an actual penalty that would be given by an actual judge for real reasons. I'd happily strike that one off the list for being a bit *too* speculative.

Edited Rich Marin (July 16, 2015 11:19:48 PM)

What was done at GPs in the previous iteration of DFCs is that the players
would clearly reveal for a few seconds the DFCs to the whole table when
opening the boosters, so everyone would be aware what DFCs were in
circulation. After that it was OK to look around when packs were laid out
face down on the table to pass them to neighbors, and that was sufficient.
I can imagine that with Origins this will be less of a problem, as there is
not one DFC in every booster :)

Obviously if you look in another player's general direction while he is
holding a pack in hand there is an inherent risk to gain other information
that could get you into trouble very easily. Just avoid looking for DFCs at
that time so to be on the safe side of the line. In general it is a good
idea to educate players on using common sense and not try to force the
situation. It is not only about being on the safe side of the line, but
also staying far away from the line itself.

In any case, if you're attending a GP whose format is Origins limited I
suspect the HJ will brief adequately those taking care of the day 2 drafts.

//DLI

David is correct. I'm sure the GP Dallas HJs will make several announcements about how the day 2 draft is going to work.

Keep in mind that this will only affect a very small number of events: GPT/PPTQ top 8 drafts, day 2 of Limited GPs, and the draft portion of Pro Tour Magic Origins.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

True - the awareness and actual attempt does need to be there. However, there is advantage in seeing another player's picks - accidentally or not.

I think DLI and Carlos did a great job of answering the initial question. I do want to follow up to your response to my response, since it's a pretty key element of the line between cheating and not-cheating.

Most of the time when an infraction is committed, there's some advantage - you draw an extra card, and you gain an advantage, because more cards are good! You miss a trigger to sacrifice a Phantasmal Image - that's an advantage, because your creature lives! But, assuming that these are accidental, you're not Cheating, because while you gained an advantage, you didn't attempt to gain an advantage. You just made a mistake.

Please don't disqualify players just because their mistake ended up with them in a better spot than they would have been had they not made it - investigate more thoroughly (I have a lot more questions for a player who accidentally drew a card on the play than I do for a player who forgot to draw one on the draw), but if the player wasn't trying to knowingly break the rules, it's not capital-C Cheating.

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

I'm sure the GP Dallas HJs will make several announcements about how the day 2 draft is going to work.

I'm positive they will as well. However, I have a sealed PPTQ this week, and I had not started playing when Innistrad was out, so I am interested in sooner clarification.

I had an idea that seemed most fair to all players. However, I can find absolutely nothing in the rules or policies that supports my idea other than “Head Judge has final say.” My idea was for when a DFC was opened in draft, reveal it, and announce it to all players. Then immediately replace it with a judge-marked checklist card. At any time during the draft, players could ask me publicly what DFCs have been opened (not away from table). This would ensure that players near the DFC wouldn't gain an advantage by seeing a card that players at the other end of the table could not clearly see. It would eliminate any reason for wandering eyes during the draft, as there would not be any face up cards to see. It would also eliminate the potential of revealing information about a player's draft strategies or draft pool if they passed a DFC (such as the Chandra previously mentioned in this thread). Since there is a low number of DFCs this time around, this feels like it would not be very disruptive to the tournament and keep the integrity high instead of tightroping on peeking.

Originally posted by Jason Daniels:

I'm positive they will as well. However, I have a sealed PPTQ this week, and I had not started playing when Innistrad was out, so I am interested in sooner clarification.

I had an idea that seemed most fair to all players. However, I can find absolutely nothing in the rules or policies that supports my idea other than “Head Judge has final say.” My idea was for when a DFC was opened in draft, reveal it, and announce it to all players. Then immediately replace it with a judge-marked checklist card. At any time during the draft, players could ask me publicly what DFCs have been opened (not away from table). This would ensure that players near the DFC wouldn't gain an advantage by seeing a card that players at the other end of the table could not clearly see. It would eliminate any reason for wandering eyes during the draft, as there would not be any face up cards to see. It would also eliminate the potential of revealing information about a player's draft strategies or draft pool if they passed a DFC (such as the Chandra previously mentioned in this thread). Since there is a low number of DFCs this time around, this feels like it would not be very disruptive to the tournament and keep the integrity high instead of tightroping on peeking.

What DLI said about how it worked when Innistrad came out is correct. I can't say if that's exactly how we are supposed to do it this time, so let's see if Scott can provide any thoughts.

One more piece of information that DLI didn't mention is the fact that you weren't allow to obscure your pick in case you drafted a DFC. You had to put it on top of your drafted pile. Obviously, as soon as you draft another card, you put that one of top so you cover the DFC.

With the first incarnation of DFCs at a Grand Prix (San Diego), I had the players open a booster, pick out the DFC, and hold it up; I gave everyone a few seconds to look around and register what was opened. Then, as you lay out the pack for the next player, any DFC still in the pack is quite visible - and I explained to players that it's OK to look around after everyone has laid out their pack, but not at any other point.

That whole process seems unnecessary, when the occurrence of DFCs in boosters won't be nearly as common (surely, there won't be a Mythic Rare planeswalker in EVERY pack!).

And, of course, a DFC you pick will be visible until your next pick - that much hasn't changed.

For your local Comp REL events - i.e., you have 8 players in a Top 8 draft, for a GPT or PPTQ - this should be very easy to manage. Monitor the draft - you should be, anyway! - and if a player opens a booster with a DFC, ask him to hold it up and ask the others to look … count to 3 or 4 … then proceed as usual. Remind your players that they should not be looking around, until everyone's laid out the pack; if there's no DFC involved, you don't have to do anything. If there is, then pause before they pick up the next pack.

The information gained and revealed, re: DFCs in draft, is just another wrinkle in the entire draft strategy - let your players have fun with it!

d:^D

Please don't disqualify players just because their mistake ended up with them in a better spot than they would have been had they not made it - investigate more thoroughly (I have a lot more questions for a player who accidentally drew a card on the play than I do for a player who forgot to draw one on the draw), but if the player wasn't trying to knowingly break the rules, it's not capital-C Cheating.

Oh definitely not - I didn't mean to say that I would consider it cheating off the bat, definitely not without an investigation. The issue I see is that an action that would normally have no legal reason to happen in the draft (looking at or towards another player's pack or pile of picks) is justified with the presence of DFC. It adds a complicating factor to the investigation and increases the chance that a player would see something they're not supposed to. It's easy to not see your opponents picks if you're focused on your own packs/picks.

But thank you for anyone who's chimed in. I know it's a fairly uncommon situation and Magic Origins limited events will be gone in a couple of months, but I'm sure DFC will be back in the future. It's something that has mostly been noted as an exception in policy docs, so this clarification has been very helpful.