Aloha plays against Nabila, and has an Obzedat, Ghost Council in the exile zone. He forgets to bring it back in his upkeep and draws instead. Nabila immediately calls you and explains that she wants the trigger on the stack in order to Stifle it.

This looks like a simple “Missed Trigger” situation, but the IPG says to resolve the trigger, not to put it on the stack.

What do you do?

If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous two paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered
ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of
the stack. No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the appropriate zone or zones when the
ability should have triggered. For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't
sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.

Previous two paragraphs cover default actions and those that happened more than a turn ago. Seems like it pretty clearly falls under this, and I don't see where it says resolve.

Edit: Fixed spelling errors.

Edited Ian Groombridge (Jan. 30, 2014 06:50:16 PM)

We should put the trigger on the stack.

In this context, I have no problem applying a loose interpretation to the
IPG's use of “resolve”, rather than a strict definition from the Comp Rules.

The IPG is not a rules document; it is not written legalistically; it is a
guide. Letting Nabila Stifle a forgotten Obzedat trigger is well within
the scope of the missed trigger philosophy.

The idea that forgetting a trigger can make it uncounterable should be
ludicrous to players and judges alike. The IPG is written in a way that
clearly delineates how to handle the most common problems that occur in
competitive magic. This is such a corner case, where the difference
between the technical and colloquial definitions of “resolve” actually
happens to matter, that we can't expect it to be totally covered by the IPG.

(The follow-up question then becomes whether we randomly put a card from
Aloha's hand back on top of his deck, since he drew for the turn already,
but we're already deep into a corner of policy here, so I won't speculate
on this.)

@Ian: The triggered ability is covered by the first paragraph, which covers default action and delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object.
@Paul: I am uncomfortable with loose interpretations. The IPG was written carefully, and the difference between resolves and is put on the stack also matters in less atrocious cases.

While the potential of having an uncounterable trigger by “forgetting” about it (which is Cheating, but could be tough to discover) is there, I can understand the logic behind just resolving it immediately.

Having said that, if Nabila wanted to Stifle the trigger it's in her own interest to make sure Aloha does not forget about it. This includes saying something along the lines of “Pass. In your upkeep…” or “I'll pass and respond to your upkeep trigger.”

Originally posted by Claudio Martín Nieva Scarpatti:

Having said that, if Nabila wanted to Stifle the trigger it's in her own interest to make sure Aloha does not forget about it. This includes saying something along the lines of “Pass. In your upkeep…” or “I'll pass and respond to your upkeep trigger.”

This, if Nablia wants to counter the trigger they have just as much control to make sure it happens as Aloha does.

I would not consider it a deviation from policy to put the trigger on the stack instead of just resolving it. Nabila is obviously well aware of the trigger, and is waiting to see if Aloha has any other effects during his upkeep. The only indication that Nabila has that the trigger might not be remembered by Aloha is when Aloha moves to his draw step, so Nabila stepped in at the earliest available possibility to make sure that the trigger happens.

Consider the situation if Nabila controls a Sulfuric Vortex, and Aloha blows through his draw step and Nabila doesn't get an opportunity to point out the trigger until after Aloha has already drawn a card. We would put that trigger onto the stack, since it was pointed out immediately, and we don't treat it like a missed trigger. I believe that same philosophy should apply here.

@Claudio & Gareth: Maybe I should have made it clearer that Nabila does not have the time to point out anything. Aloha untaps, then draws without pause.

@Casey: In the Sulfuric Vortex case, the not-missed trigger is Nabila's, and the IPG is very clear: Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step without allowing an opponent to demonstrate awareness of a triggered ability, the controller still has an opportunity to fulfill the appropriate obligation by doing so at that point. This is not the same situation: for starters, the ability belongs to Aloha, not Nabila.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 31, 2014 02:08:12 AM)

@Florian Horn: I am aware that this is not the same situation, however, I feel that a similar policy should apply and is philosophically consistent with the rest of the IPG - if the AP has a trigger they control that the NAP wants to resolve, they can't advance the game past that point without the NAP getting the chance to point out the trigger.

Edited Casey Brefka (Jan. 31, 2014 02:38:47 AM)

Florian: You said that the IPG is written carefully, and I agree. I never
said, nor meant to imply, that the IPG wasn't written carefully. What I
did say is that the IPG is not written to explicitly cover every scenario.

As judges, one of our roles is to uphold and enforce the IPG. But we
should not do that blindly. Sometimes, the letter of the IPG does not
match with our expectations for what should happen. Most often, this is
because our understanding of the policy philosophy needs to be improved.
However, in some *very* rare cases, a mismatch occurs because we have
reached a corner case of policy that the IPG has not accounted for, since
it is written to handle the common cases.

I believe this is one of those (exceedingly rare) cases, which is why I
would put the Obzedat trigger on the stack, so that Nabila can respond to
it. I am confident that this is what players would typically expect to
occur in this situation.

Alternatively, I think Casey's reasoning is also very sound, and sidesteps
the whole question of whether the IPG is “wrong.”

What about this scenario:

A: “Draw for turn”
N: "Trigger Consecrated Sphinx, draw two cards."
A: Resolves. Move to main phase…wait, crap, I forgot my Obzedat trigger.

Do we need to consider that Nabila might be responding with a Stifle that wasn't in her hand when the trigger should have resolved? The IPG specifies that missed triggers can't target objects that weren't legal when the trigger should have resolved–while this rule doesn't directly apply, the philosophy behind the rule seems relevant here.

Edit to add IPG quote:

No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the appropriate zone or zones when the ability should have triggered

Edited Eli Meyer (Jan. 31, 2014 06:38:22 PM)