So, the following happened at my local GPT:

Andreas casts Inquisition of Kozilek targeting Neil. Neil reveals his hand, laying the cards on the table in two piles. The first pile contains Lightning Bolt, Tarmogoyf and Shardless Agent, while the second pile two Misty Rainforest and Boom // Bust.
Andreas asks Neil “What is the converted mana cost of Boom//Bust?”

Which of the following answers can Neil give without committing Cheating?
a) “It's two.”
b) “It's six.”
c) “It's eight.”
d) "Well, if I revealed it from Dark Confidant, I'd lose 8 life.“
e) ”Read the card. I don't have to answer that."

The player in question didn't answer the question, and the judge wasn't called on this matter, so I wanted to know how to handle these situations in the future.

Edited Scott Marshall (March 8, 2013 03:53:49 PM)

c) is the only one that's incorrect, but he could probably give any of those answers without committing Cheating.

The CMC is 2 and the CMC is 6. If you revealed it to Bob, that's why you'd lose 8 life. As long as a player isn't representing derived information incorrectly, there's no infraction. Saying “it's 8” could be Cheating if he KNOWS that's not accurate, but it's more likely a misunderstanding of the rules leading to a wrong answer, so it would fall under TE:CPV.

Obviously b) (it's 6) could be given in an attempt to mislead the opponent into thinking Inquisition couldn't choose that card, but since it's not really an inaccurate representation of the derived information, it can't be Cheating. The Inquisition player has the right to call a judge to ask the question and get a more complete answer. Hopefully he knows to ask “Is Boom/Bust a legal choice for Inquisition of Kozilek?” because if he asks “What's the CMC?” and hears “It's 2 and 6”, he might still be confused about whether he can choose it. :)

Edited Josh Stansfield (March 8, 2013 03:50:42 PM)

Personally I believe only answers d) and e) to be acceptable here. Answers a), b), and c) are wrong. Boom//Bust's CMC is 2 and 6, not 2, not 6 (and definitely not 8). Of course, Boom//Bust answers to the question “Is your CMC 6?” with “yes”, but that was not the opponent's question.

That said, I would have a hard time disqualifying a player answering either a) or b). The point I made above is very debatable, and I am sure many judges will disagree with me. Therefore it is quite possible that a player thinks his “bluff” is okay. And since " player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal", according to the IPG, I could not disqualify the player in good conscience.

f) “What do I look like, a judge?”

Edit for those who missed my point: “f) You should probably ask a judge about that.”

Edited Adam Zakreski (March 11, 2013 10:06:02 AM)

Originally posted by Sebastian Rittau:

Personally I believe only answers d) and e) to be acceptable here. Answers a), b), and c) are wrong. Boom//Bust's CMC is 2 and 6, not 2, not 6 (and definitely not 8). Of course, Boom//Bust answers to the question “Is your CMC 6?” with “yes”, but that was not the opponent's question.

But Boom//Bust DOES have a CMC of 6; otherwise it could not answer “yes” to the question “is your CMC 6?”. It ALSO has a CMC of 2, but that doesn't change the fact that is also has a CMC of 6.

Answer a) and b) may both be incomplete, but they are both true answers, and as such I do not see how the player violated MTR 4.1. As (hopefully) a parallel: If a player asks "what abilities does your Akroma, Angel of Wrath have?“, and the opponent answers ”flying, vigilance, haste, and protection from black", would you consider that answer to be unacceptable, too? If so, how do you reconcile that with MTR 4.1? If not, what is different from the original situation?

(That said, I don't really like answers a) and b), but I believe that they are legal. They do feel different than my Akroma example to me, but I couldn't say why; at least not at this time of night.)

Originally posted by Timo Koski:

The first pile contains Lightning Bolt, Tarmogoyf and Shardless Agent, while the second pile two Misty Rainforest and Boom // Bust.

I think the answer to “is this Cheating?” lies less in the way Neil answered the CMC question and more in why he separated his cards this particular way. Is he intentionally trying to mislead his opponent into thinking that Boom//Bust isn't a legal choice? Given that separating one cards into a “<=3 CMC pile” and “>3 CMC + land” pile is a very common shortcut/courtesy when being Inquisitioned, it feels an awful lot like a misrepresentation.

I like the discussion that's been had so far, and hopefully others agree that this is a relevant point to bring up. That said, I wonder if (like most Cheating scenarios) it might be too difficult to say “yes, this is Cheating” without actually having the players in front of me.

Paul, I would never consider the implication of the way the piles was laid out to be Cheating. (As in, under no circumstances, ever. No matter what.) Even if he laid out his cards and says “pick one of these” pointing to the 3 card pile, he has still done nothing illegal. Giving an opponent bad strategic advice is completely acceptable.

NAP cannot cheat here unless he violates the communication policy. If he explicitly says “you can only legally pick a card from this pile,” then we have CPV or Cheating. It is a 100% legal and acceptable jedi mind trick to create piles that are inconsistent with “customary” expectations as long as you don't answer incorrectly when asked about the properties of Boom//Bust.

Thanks, Josh.