This happened at the Prerelease:

It's game 3.
AP attacks and extends hand.
NAP shakes hand.
AP scoops up cards, shuffles deck.
Players go to fill out match slip.
Players disagree on match outcome.
Judge gets called.
AP says he attacked for lethal.
NAP shows judge Commencement of Festivities (a Fog of sorts), says he had lethal on the backswing and says he understood AP's gesture as a concession.

Awkward, awkward, awkward…

My ruling:

• Offering a handshake is usually a sign of offering a concession, not asking for one. (Usually but not necessarily.)
  
• Most human beings will automatically shake a hand that is offered. It's a sort of “social reflex.” Therefore that does not automatically imply concession (or, in fact, anything other than that they're social beings.)
  
• Offering a handshake AND THEN scooping up your cards and shuffling them into your library strongly implies concession. Also, it cannot be fixed.
  
• Conclusion: AP has thrown the game.
  

Thoughts?

Does NAP think that AP knew about the Fog? If not, why does NAP think that AP conceded?

In this particular case I strongly suspected that AP, being a fairly new player, did not even know that Commencement of Festivities was a thing. That made it slightly more awkward.

NAP probably did not think AP knew about the Fog either, but from what I gathered it all happened so fast that AP was already shuffling up when NAP got around to casting it. After that, I was called.

I educated both players on the ambiguity of handshakes. Fortunately, AP realized he would have lost the game anyway.

As i read this AP won.

Just because NAP shows the judge his cards doesnt mean anyone else knows them..

AP attacked and shaked hand, for me, thats a shake from a winner… he wont attack and shake for a draw… makes not so much sense to me without any knowledge of the boardstate and the other 2 games, even the deck they are playing.. ^^

I agree with your ruling. Specifically, the action of picking up one's cards and shuffling them into the deck (a.k.a. “scooping”) strongly implies concession.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

AP attacked and shaked hand, for me, thats a shake from a winner… he wont attack and shake for a draw…

I could probably get like 50% of my opponents to “concede” to me in this way if I randomly extended my hand whenever I attacked. Someone extends a hand, you shake it. It's an ingrained social custom. It's rude not to shake it.

Attack + shake hand = not much clear but I agree about means I WIN.
Attack + tell “I kill u” + shake hand = I win (100% sure)
Scooping = I Concede
Scooping + shake hand = I concede
Attack + Scooping + shake hand = ??? the problem…
Attack + Scooping + shake hand + Show the fog = I concede

In the most of situations like this, until my investigation told me clearly something opposite, I will think this as a AP's Concesion.
The logic points that (until something point someother; for that, investigate exists) soo I'll do that.

(It's my thinks… Maibe I'm wrong)

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

AP attacked and shaked hand, for me, thats a shake from a winner… he wont attack and shake for a draw…

I could probably get like 50% of my opponents to “concede” to me in this way if I randomly extended my hand whenever I attacked. Someone extends a hand, you shake it. It's an ingrained social custom. It's rude not to shake it.

Yeah, true point.

I just feel like in magic if someone just extends the hand to me im either “What are u doing now?” or “Oh well, you win.”.
I wouldn't just shake his hand out of social customs..

Social customs vary amongst cultures. That's a good idea to not read too much into them in international events, and to use your knowledge of your community in local events.

- Emilien

I think this would be a good place to separate the players while you're getting the stories, even at regular REL.

We have a potential disagreement on reality, and it could easily get nasty fast if they're listening to each other

VERY awkward situation: I think you solved it correctly. I wouldn't emphasize the hand shake, People shook my hand after Game 1 and 2 many times because we had such a great game. I would emphasize on scooping up the deck. That is the “concession”, especially since it happened before a board state that ends the game according to rules.

This is clearly a “you had to be there” situation. I agree with separating the players.

I'm missing a lot from NAP here…
“Why did you shake AP's hand?”
“Why do you think AP offered their hand to you?”
“Did AP know about this card you are showing me?”
“Do you think you and AP both thought the same person won at the end of the game?”

I've seen this play out in real life as described. I've also seen a player attack knowing they can't win and then extend their hand to concede. Context matters…a lot.

I also think “who scoops first” is a pretty weird bar to set for a concession, which is what I'm reading from what people are saying. To me, if it's after hands had been shaken how/when cards are scooped and by who doesn't really matter. It's what got us there that does.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

This is clearly a “you had to be there” situation. I agree with separating the players.

I was there (well, after they called me over) and I feel that separating the players would have cast a shadow on the situation. I am familiar with the players and I had no grounds to suspect anything but honest mistakes. They're both inexperienced and casual players. Separating them could have given one or both of them the feeling that the other player did something fishy and/or that they were under suspicion and/or being accused of doing something shady themselves. From there it's an awfully short leap to the impression of a witch hunt, which is terrible for morale and detrimental to the event. (But yes, you had to be there.)

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

I'm missing a lot from NAP here…

I'll try to provide you with the gist of what I got from NAP.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

“Why did you shake AP's hand?”

“Because he offered it.”

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

“Why do you think AP offered their hand to you?”

“Because I was about to win.”

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

“Did AP know about this card you are showing me?”

“I don't know. I guess not.”

(Note: There's no real support for NAP to think that AP knew AP couldn't win, but I don't think NAP was aware of that. In his mind he had won when AP tapped out to attack.)

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

“Do you think you and AP both thought the same person won at the end of the game?”

“At the time I did, but then we went to fill out the slip and it turned out we didn't, so we called you.”

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

This is clearly a “you had to be there” situation. I agree with separating the players.

I was there (well, after they called me over) and I feel that separating the players would have cast a shadow on the situation. I am familiar with the players and I had no grounds to suspect anything but honest mistakes. They're both inexperienced and casual players. Separating them could have given one or both of them the feeling that the other player did something fishy and/or that they were under suspicion and/or being accused of doing something shady themselves. From there it's an awfully short leap to the impression of a witch hunt, which is terrible for morale and detrimental to the event. (But yes, you had to be there.)

I think not separating players in times where there is a disagreement on what happened is a bad precedent to set. Memory is weird and in all places in life (sports, work, conversation, etc and even Magic) with 2 people there are usually 3 sides to every story; A's version, N's version and what actually happened. With no malicious intent, people on good terms often end up remembering things differently. You want to get each player's “side” with little interference from the other. Something along the lines of, “okay players, I have 2 people who remember the same event differently and I want to listen to each person separately in an effort to determine what I think actually happened.”

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

(Note: There's no real support for NAP to think that AP knew AP couldn't win, but I don't think NAP was aware of that. In his mind he had won when AP tapped out to attack.)

To me, this is quite important.
AP tapped out to attack for lethal, AP extended their hand signalling the game was over, NAP accepted the handshake, NAP gave AP no reason to think NAP could/would win this game, and NAP gave the judge no reason to think AP had any reason to think they were not the winner. Match is over at this point. What happens now (unless it's a discussion) has zero bearing on my ruling. AP won.

I am also having an educational discussion with both of these players about the importance of clear communication.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

not separating players in times where there is a disagreement on what happened is a bad precedent to set.

There was no disagreement. There had been a misunderstanding but when I got there it was already cleared up and they just wanted me to deal with the fallout.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

AP tapped out to attack for lethal, AP extended their hand signalling the game was over, NAP accepted the handshake, NAP gave AP no reason to think NAP could/would win this game, and NAP gave the judge no reason to think AP had any reason to think they were not the winner. Match is over at this point. What happens now (unless it's a discussion) has zero bearing on my ruling. AP won.

AP shuffled up. No way to verify that it was indeed lethal and since they're very-to-somewhat inexperienced players I wouldn't put it past either of them to have misjudged lethal.