Welcome to the latest edition of the Knowledge Pool! As a reminder, the new format is designed to encourage discussion, knowledge sharing and critical thinking, and not so much focused on finding a single “right answer.” This scenario is labeled as Silver, meaning we especially encourage L1 and L2 judges to participate. So here is the scenario (view blog post here)!

*************

Ansel and Nicodemus are playing a match in a Pro Tour Qualifier. Ansel wins game 2 of the match, picks up the result slip, and starts to fill it out as a 2-0 win. Nicodemus interrupts and says, “You didn’t win game 1 – I did!” Ansel says “No, I’m pretty sure I won game 1.” Unable to come to an agreement on how game 1 finished, they call a judge.

Once they’ve explained the situation to you, what are your next steps? What might you do to come to a ruling?

First, I would ask both players about how the 1st game ended, hoping that they at least both agree that the game ended with a winner and not in a draw. Based on that information, I'm going to ask which player played first in game 2, and if that player made the decision to play or draw in that game. Armed with that information, I would be able to determine who won game 1 because whoever made the decision to play or draw in game 2 lost game 1.

I would probably start by asking to see their life sheets and seeing if they agree or disagree. Then I'd probably use those life totals to ask about how the previous game ended, especially if it's not obvious who won the previous game from the sheets.

Life annotations are a good way since you can see how much games were played.

Also, the play-draw rule applies here to also help determine who won, since the loser in the previous game chose who starts the next game.

A minor investigation is necessary, too, so asking both players separatedly is a good advise before taking a decision.

I've seen this situation happen a couple of times, but the players resolve themselves this issue, since they were a minor confussion between them and no harm was done.

Saludos

Elias Fajardo
L2, Caracas, Venezuela.

My first thought will be “What?, are they crazy”.

Then, I will start asking simple questions how game 1 ended. That includes:

- Who started game 2
- How did the game 1 end, who started putting all there cards together, what was said
- Looking at the life totals.

Usualy that should be enough that one player will realize that they just mixed up some matches and he is wrong. If this isn't enough then there are three different cases that this situation can finaly end:

a) One player still mixes things up and is accidently wrong
b) Both players really think they have won and have misunderstood their opponents action add the end of the game
c) One player ist intentionly lying.

Because c) becomes something that should be considered now, this is the point, where I involve the HJ to do the investigation. Also, this the point where I would seperate both players to be able to talk to them in private.

In this investigation I would aim to get more infos about game 1. Like what was played, what where the interesting situations, what was the board state at the end of the game. By asking both players in private and comparing their stories (they will at least slightly differ, because game 1 is some time ago and the will remember different things) The goal is to find out where their different perception of game 1 comes from. It also helps to find out if someone is lying and trying to build a story.

If situation b) is the case I would have to make a decision who in my opinion have won game 1. This will make some player very unhappy and for that reason I would take more time then normal to explain my reasons for the ruling. Especialy if I ruling that the match is over now (because I rule in favor for the 2-0) I can use more time because that doesn't delay the tournament. If rule for 1-1 it is important to balance the time for explaination to the round time because you don't want to delay the tournament to much.

First, I would probably see the notes they have from the match (most players use one sheet for each match) and see how many games are there in the sheet. If there is any conclusive, I would ask about the first game, who started, how it ended, what was the decisive play. I would check the notes to see if their description match with the notes. Then I would ask about the second game, the same questions. I would ask to Ansel apart a description of the game he won; then ask Nicodemus about the game that Ansel related.

Finally, my decision will be based on the information obtained from the notes and my conversation with them.

First I would examine the notes/lifepads. If it was not clear from there, then for the next part of the investigation, separation is going to be needed. You don't want them hearing each other stories immediately as their details might bleed into each other and become a mess. Also, the chance that this becomes heated is high with accusations of “that didn't happen that way”. Taking each aside, the questions asked are going to revolve around how the game ended, examining how they kept life, who played first in game 2, etc.

Thanks for the solid suggestions from basically everybody who chimed in! Will Bumgardner and April King, in particular, immediately hit on some very good things to try right off the bat.

Whenever we're faced with a situation like this, the thing to do is investigate. There's a piece of information we don't know, and our first goal should be to find information we do or can know that will lead us to it. In this situation, there are a number of useful things we can try:

* Asking who went first in game 2 – this often lets us “work backward” to who had the choice, and thus who lost game 1.

* If the players have been recording life totals on paper, look at those and ask questions; often, something as simple as “what caused this loss of two life” can jog a player's memory and get us quality information.

* Ask each player, separately, to ex plain how game 1 ended, and compare the stories. Don't hesitate to use this information for further questions, like “Your opponent says he had this creature and that creature, and you blocked like this when he attacked; does that match what you remember?”

* If you're not getting anywhere with the players, remember there are
other people around. Spectators may have seen what happened, and players at nearby tables may also have information.

Finally, keep in mind that sometimes there will *not* be solid, case-closed evidence one way or another, but you still need to make a ruling. This is where you can tie together all of the above techniques and more; while we always want to have clear evidence to point to, when we don't have that it's OK – if a bit less than ideal – to pay attention to things like who sounds more confident (or the opposite: who sounds more hesitant in recalling things?), whic h player seems to have better or more detailed recall or records of what happened, etc., and make the call that way.

And, as always, bear in mind the time you're spending on the issue; issuing an extra-large time extension and holding up all the other players in your tournament is less than ideal, so don't spend too much time asking players to repeat the stories you've already heard. Just get the information you think you can get, and then make the best ruling you can.