Funnily enough, we had this exact discussion in the Comp REL forums a month ago, so I am fairly confident in stating that there is no infraction, no penalty for this situation.

As for reporting the result in WER, I'll defer to Uncle Scott. ‘O’ficially, we should be entering it as 0-0-3 per the MTR, but 1-1-3 is acceptable as it is the number of games actually played.

No infraction. Insert results 1-1-3.

Sorry, but I have a problem here.

Could we intentionnaly drew 1 game ? So if we can, can we intentionnaly drew 2 ? Where do you stop this opportunity before you choose to considere it is stalling, or Improperly determine a winner ?

My problem here is the “intentionally”.

You stop it when the round ends. Before that, they can do it as many times
they want.

It is not stalling, because they are not playing slowly. And it is not
improperly determining a winner, because drawing games does not help in
determining a winner in any way. And even if it would, it is allowed by
MTR, therefore it is not improper.

If the players choose this way to prolong their match in order to get extra
information they are entitled to use in order to agree on draw, it is their
choice. And they are doing it at the expense of their own time. If the
other game does not finishes with one player winning, these two players
effectively wasted all of their time to decide the result of their match by
playing Magic and now they will have to use some other method provided they
do not want to draw.

And that's when you should start watching the match and listening to their
discussion. Because at this moment, it can easile turn to IDaW or Bribery.
Before that, we don't really care. Players are wasting only their own time
and since they are both OK with that, there is no problem.

2015-10-24 1:27 GMT+02:00 Christophe Paris <

Originally posted by David Záleský:

It is not stalling, because they are not playing slowly. And it is not
improperly determining a winner, because drawing games does not help in
determining a winner in any way. And even if it would, it is allowed by
MTR, therefore it is not improper.

I first ran in to this having a discussion with another Judge at a recent event. In one of the most interesting cases of sportsmanship I have seen at Regular REL, NAP mulliganed to four and missed their second and third land-drops. AP suggested drawing the game so they could start over and play some real games (this was pre-Vancouver mulligan), but checked with us to make sure it was ok. The other Judge and I checked and found nothing in the IPG or MTR that prevented it, so they shuffled up for a new game. Again, really cool sportsmanship.

No infraction, report match to reflect games actually played (1-1-3)

Drops, concessions, and other such things are handled in similar ways, asking for the results to reflect games played. I see no reason for this case to be any different.

Could be wrong, but I don't see an infraction here.

No slow play, no stalling, they are determining a winner by playing (and drawing) games of Magic.

IDs are reported as 0-0-3, so I'd enter it and feel a little dodgy about the whole thing, but it seems clean.

I'm pretty sure this is kosher. IIRC (at work ATM so I can't really check documents) IDaW states that a player may not go out of their way (my paraphrasing) to determine outside information which may impact their choice to (or not to) ID or do any other intentional match result. However, if it's the next match over, that isn't “going out of their way”, so this doesn't fall into IDaW. Also, no information was gained by asking a 3rd party to fetch it, so this isn't OA. As far as I'm concerned, this seems 100% kosher to me. Tell the players to report the match 1-1-3 because that's how many games were played, and hand in their slip.

No penalty or infraction. They've used the information in the game beside them to decide the result but haven't gone to great lengths and or stalled to do this.

I believe you could report this 0-0-3 as per the MTR but reporting it as 1-1-3 is more appropriate here per Uncle Scott's post here (this thread also seems a perfect match to the situation in this KP scenario). The logic being that we should record the games that were actually played.

I would be more inclined to enter a result of 0-0-3 over 1-1-3. Actually, I probably like 1-1-0 or 1-1-1 over both of them.

If we want to represent that each player won a game, that gives us the 1-1- part…so where do we get a 3 from?

There's no reason why we need to represent 5 games on the result slip, since matches of Magic are played until there are 2 wins. 1-1-3 isn't any more appropriate here than 1-1-0, 1-1-1, 1-1-99, etc. Once we tack that 3 on, we're no longer really doing what we said we were: We're no longer representing the games actually played. We're doing half and half - we're half representing the games played, and half using “3 drawn games” as a weird code for “intentional draw” (one that we pretty much just made up now, in fact).

But we already have an actual code for intentional draw: 0-0-3.

While I agree with Chris Wendelboe's assumption that this code was probably intended for intentional draws made before any games were won by a player, I still think it's the best fit if we want to make the result reflect an ID differently than a normal match, since our 1-1-X plan doesn't give us any guidance on what that X should be. And while the 1-1- affects tiebreakers, so does the X - they both affect the game-win percentage of the players involved. If the players ask to report it as 1-1-99 rather than 1-1-3, we don't have a shred of policy to say they can't.

I'd rather handle all IDs consistently. That means either deciding on a fixed number for X if we go 1-1-X (and ideally getting that into policy documents, cough cough), or failing that, sticking with 0-0-3.

Edited Mani Cavalieri (Oct. 27, 2015 12:36:53 PM)

Reporting the match as 1-1-99 does in fact have a negative impact on the players' game win percentage, should they be needed for tie breaks. While there is nothing in policy that says they can't request to report their match with that result, in the end it only hurts them and, in most cases, nobody else.

With that being said, I imagine part of the reason we want to accurately represent what happened in the mach is because sometimes game win percentage matters, and 0-0-3 is actually different than 1-1-3 here….

Mani, I would ask you a question. Suppose two players each end up taking mulligans to 3 cards. They decide to take a draw in that game so they can draw new opening hands (which is completely legal). Should they not report the drawn game? Assuming the end result is 2-0-1?

1-1-99 would only be appropriate if they actually played 101 games and each player won one of them and drew the rest.

Mark the number of wins the first player got in the first box, the number of wins the second player got in the second box, and the number of games that ended in a draw in the third box. Take it very literally. The only time we put 0-0-3 or ID on the slip of no games were played (and if games WERE played, neither player won / lost) and both players agree to a draw. To not do so would be inconsistent.

Edited Sal Cortez (Oct. 27, 2015 04:29:18 AM)

Chris - I'm not against reporting games actually played, to be clear (and I've edited my earlier post to reflect that, since I realize I used some poor phrasing there). I'm simply pointing out that “1-1-3” is not reporting games actually played, since that “3” is made up. They didn't draw 3 games.

If the players are asking us for guidance on what they should fill out, and we want to record the games actually played above all else, then the closest reflection to reality is either 1-1-0 (they literally only played 2 games) or 1-1-1 (they only agreed to draw at least one game).

We had an official answer here about the “0-0-3” issue and the philosophy behind it:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Since they actually played those games, the match should be reported as 1-1-3. The MTR specifies 0-0-3 for an Intentional Draw (ID) because people kept insisting on an ‘O’fficial answer. Having that in place does help create consistency - everyone who chooses to ID gets the same effect on their tiebreakers as every other ID. It also gives us a policy we can quote, when players want to report their ID as 0-0-99.

However, we've always held that the results reported must reflect the games actually played; for this reason, if A is ahead 1-0, and is about to win game 2, when the players agree to a draw, it should be reported 1-1, not 0-0-3. Given that, this match should reflect the games actually played - so 1-1-3 is correct.

I'll hence report the result as 1-1-3, reflecting the played games, and no infractions.

Originally posted by Mani Cavalieri:

Chris - I'm not against reporting games actually played, to be clear (and I've edited my earlier post to reflect that, since I realize I used some poor phrasing there). I'm simply pointing out that “1-1-3” is not reporting games actually played, since that “3” is made up. They didn't draw 3 games.

If the players are asking us for guidance on what they should fill out, and we want to record the games actually played above all else, then the closest reflection to reality is either 1-1-0 (they literally only played 2 games) or 1-1-1 (they only agreed to draw at least one game).

Ah but they did play 5 total games, just 3 of them were not to the normal conclusion that we're used to. Players absolutely can choose to draw a game at any point, but it still counts as a game that was played just the same as if a player concedes in a game before the game tells them “you lose”.