If this was Adam just straight lying to his opponent then I would be displeased, but I would do little more than advise Nicole of the option to disregard such statements in the future.

My reasons:
Much discussion here is about Adam “bluffing” (or “lying”). But how about:
1) Adam changing mind (something like: I'm almost certainly going to lose this game, but it'll take awhile…. nevermind I want to continue playing it out)
2) Adam suddenly figuring out a way around it (oh wait, I just remembered the ‘redirect your counterspell to this redirect’ trick)
3) Adam assuming Nicole had another land in hand, then realizing later that slightly more was needed
4) Adam really meaning some subset of counterspells (something like: Adam has 4 lands, Nicole has 3 total all untapped. Adam lightning bolts Nicole but says 'show a counter and I concede. acceptable counters: Swan Song, Dispel, Negate, Flashfreeze. unacceptable counters: Remand, Mana leak, Cryptic Command, Pact of Negation, Essence Scatter)


A special note on (3). This is similar to something I did once 3 years ago. My opponent had 3 lands, cast Deceiver Exarch during my end step. I said "just show me the Splinter Twin and I'll scoop“. Took me 3 seconds to realize and say ”and a 4th land". He did, and I did. But what if he had only shown me the Splinter Twin, no land, and I didn't want to concede? How many judges here would be giving me a Very Stern Talk?


I'm not going to tell Adam he can't change his mind. I won't tell him that he had to be pedantic about which obviously inapplicable counterspells he had to exclude (hey another one! Exclude). And I won't feel displeasure towards him for it either. So with the similarity between these cases and the straight up “lying” case, I don't want to handle them significantly different.


Another completely different reason why I don't want to handle this with a dire approach is that I think it's more benign than other well established “less than sporting, but legal” player activities.
"What does that foreign Vampire Nighthawk do?“ ”Oh it's a 2/3 flying lifelink“ (specifically omitting ‘deathtouch’).

”Judge: my opponent has only 5 lands, can I flash in Pestermite in response to his Pact of Negation trigger and tap down a land before he has a chance to pay the mana?“ (specifically phrased in such a way to elicit a ‘yes’, hoping to mislead the opponent on what the judge was really saying)



What happens if lots of players start lying about ”show me X and I concede“? The playerbase at large will just learn to not show cards, and to just play magic. How bad is that? Not really.

What happens if players are purposefully obtuse about what their foreign cards do? Playerbase calls judges more frequently to get Oracle text. How bad is that? I'll let you handle the extra judge calls please!

What happens if players go through verbal gymnastics as well as enlist judges to mislead their opponents? Mistrust of judges as well as more lengthy judge calls as both players quadruple-confirm what they think the judges are saying. For every call. Ugh.


I'm not arguing for a change in how we handle these ”less than sporting“ scenarios. As I said at the beginning, I'd handle a call like this very straightforward. I might, if ”lying“ express some displeasure, but not a lot, and I wouldn't try to catch the player in a ”lie to judge".

Another completely different reason why I don't want to handle this with a dire approach is that I think it's more benign than other well established “less than sporting, but legal” player activities.
"What does that foreign Vampire Nighthawk do?“ ”Oh it's a 2/3 flying lifelink“ (specifically omitting ‘deathtouch’).

”Judge: my opponent has only 5 lands, can I flash in Pestermite in response to his Pact of Negation trigger and tap down a land before he has a chance to pay the mana?“ (specifically phrased in such a way to elicit a ‘yes’, hoping to mislead the opponent on what the judge was really saying)

The big difference with these kind of examples is that everything said is true - it is just incomplete. The ‘I’ll concede if you show me a counterspell' example is a straight-up lie, which is why people are seriously uncomfortable about it.

Originally posted by Matt Sauers:

It's a total dick move. I can't find a rule against it.

I might choose to notify the player that it's because of plays like that that folks like me avoid playing Magic at public venues.

Regardless of whether this is the right thing to say or not, I also think it isn't very effective as while this might work on others, those competitive players aren't touched by statements as these precisely because of that competitive mindset. Because you shift the responsibility over from his choices/actions to those of others (deciding not to play –> “oh well that's their choice, I guess they're not the intended audience for these tournaments then”).
If you want to say something to them I think it's more effective to let him know how those actions will come back to affect him (rather than people he won't see).

Edited Toby Hazes (June 11, 2014 12:49:24 PM)

I'm not even sure I'd say anything to this player, to be honest. We forget that the Magic community is just that, a community. It's a group of people who interact with one another. If this player gets a rep for these sorts of “bluffs” or whatnot, then people will be wary when playing against him, trading with him, attending events that he is at, and so on, and he'll become a community pariah. I'm sure that anything we say to this player is not something new to him; if he's over the age of 7, he probably knows that this type of bluffing is not kosher, so us reminding him of that doesn't really do much, and I'm perfectly fine with allowing him to dig his own grave in the eyes of his local community, if he so chooses. We as judges (as far as I'm aware) are responsible for upholding the rules and procedures, and as far as I'm aware this doesn't fall into either category.

That said, should you use your authority as a judge to talk to this person, player to player and community member to community member, like “hey dude, that's not cool, you shouldn't do that”, that's your own choice, but I don't think this is a decision to make in the capacity of being a judge in any official sense.

As far as how the game should proceed, there is nothing in the docs forbidding this sort of play. It's certainly not “kosher” as far as community values are concerned, but that's not codified in any way in the docs. As a result, I'd say that play just continues, no penalties or anything. To agree with what Kim pointed out on the first page though, I would like to see this codified into the documents at some point, if it can be done. It seems like it would fit nicely into UC - Cheating, if it could be codified nicely.

Edited Lyle Waldman (June 11, 2014 11:13:16 AM)

To be honest i'm a worried about the outcome if we dont step in and at least educate the player about his behaviour. What if the idea of bluffing like this spread over the local community, leaving its marks on other players? Maybe they think to themself “Oh, this is some way to gain an advantage and nothing bad happens to him, so why not doing it myself?”.

I do understand that a situation like this is really shady and there is no infraction here, and I definitely don't want to penalize the player just because I think its bad. But I feel its necessary to talk with the player and explain to him that, even if its not penalty worthy, behaviour like this will result in bad experience for him and in the long term for everyone. If it helps to educate him about the “grey zone” of sportsmanship it cant be that bad. And even if it doesnt change his behaviour, we as a Judge send a signal to everyone that we want to create a fair and fun-filled enviroment.

During my time as judge I wouldn't have tolerated such behaviour. No stern talking would be due enough, as soon as such unsportlyness becomes tolerated, it spreads. There has always been the attitude among judges that magic shouldn't be a game of rules-lawyering, and great steps have been taken to minimize that portion of the game, to good use. Offering a concession, to me, is a technical measure during a match. Experienced players would even use it for time-management purposes, for instance if an unsideboarded matchup is bleak-looking. Allowing an abuse of this technical option in a match comes down to nothing else but rules-lawyering of the unfair kind. Players gain an advantage by exploiting a loophole in the tournament rules, not by superior knowledge of the magic rules.
As most of you judges feel there should be prevention of this behaviour, I advocate for a closing of the loophole in the tournament rules. I believe it can be done, and doing it to prevent harm to integrity and following the will of the majority of the experienced players, it's most likely a good idea. The tournament rules are “ours”. Sure, as mentioned, we, too, could rules-lawyer the player with IPG 4.3 IdaW, but that, too isn't in the spirit of the game.
The advanced judges have some superior rules-smiths amongst their ranks, come on guys, hammer time.

Originally posted by René Oberweger:

To be honest i'm a worried about the outcome if we dont step in and at least educate the player about his behaviour. What if the idea of bluffing like this spread over the local community, leaving its marks on other players? Maybe they think to themself “Oh, this is some way to gain an advantage and nothing bad happens to him, so why not doing it myself?”.

In my opinion, there are a couple things wrong with this:

1) What is the purpose of judging? As far as I'm aware, we are supposed to promote a fair environment, and promoting a fun environment is secondary. The issue with “fun” is twofold: First of all, you have to define “fun”. To some players, “fun” means no-holds-barred, do-whatever-you-want all-out cutthroat play, while to others it means going back 4 turns to fix a missed trigger, if that's what is necessary. We can define what is “fun” amongst ourselves, but imposing it on the player base is a bit heavy-handed, in my opinion. The second problem is defining what we can enforce in terms of “fun” play and what we can't. As an example, clearly mana screw is something that is unfun, and it is also something that we can't enforce. Clearly, this example is something that is unfun (well, that may not be so “clear”, in fact, but I'm presuming we are agreed that it is) but is enforceable. So there is a line somewhere, but where is the line?

2) Is something bad going to happen to him? On what grounds are you going to penalize this behaviour? The issue here is that there is no supporting wording in the docs to penalize this behaviour. Not that I think there shouldn't be; to agree with Kim on page 1 (and the pros she interviewed) I think this is a part of the docs that could be improved. However, as the docs stand, we can't actually penalize this behaviour. Thus, no matter what you do, the players will (or can) always see it as “nothing bad happens to him, so I can do this”, regardless of whether you talk to this player or not.

3) Which is more likely: The community is so cutthroat that everyone starts doing this cheat/bluff, or the community “plays fair” and decides that these tactics are underhanded and shun the player who thinks it's OK? In the latter case, there is no problem, and in the former case, well, my opinion is also that there is no problem, as everyone is following the documented rules and is agreed upon the “cultural norms”, so to speak, for their community. A third alternative is that players wisen up to these tactics; if a player says “show me a counter and I'll concede”, the other player doesn't have to show a counter at all. They can simply counter-bluff by saying “I don't have a counter”, and then blow out the opponent in the following sequence of events.

There is a big difference between penalizing the player and holding him to his declared action.

If a player at 3 life casts Lightning Bolt at a Boros Reckoner, then realizes his mistakes and tries to take it back, are you penalizing him by holding him to his declared action? Not a chance.

Likewise, this player made a very clear statement about a concession (contingent upon a legally accessible part of the game for his opponent). You are just holding him to that declared action.

My gut agrees with Matt, and judging from the straw poll of pro players and the upper level judges there's at least a consensus of (for lack of a better term) feelings. This particular player may be within the rules, but he is definitely not in their spirit. Nor do I feel that this sort of behavior is good for the community.

We are judges because we are impartial arbiters, because we have made an effort to understand the rules of both the game and the manner in which players agree to play. While “letting the community punish/reward the player for his actions” is something we can choose, I'd like to point out that WE are members of that community, and we represent more than just ourselves as individuals. We are respected members, authority figures, we represent the TO and Organized Play. If players see that we accept certain behaviors and prohibit others, they will associate ALL OP with those behaviors and values, either at that location or at every location.

I'd recommend a judge in this position immediately speak with the TO, with an eye toward determining if he/she thinks that this would encourage or discourage players from playing in her events. The fact that this may be technically legal (I disagree, but…) means that your best and clearest way to resolve this is to ask the TO if they consider this acceptable behavior. At that point you have your answer, and can proceed from there.

-Ben Q

I haven't read through all the posts here, but I think this is a slightly different perspective than anything I have seen here in this thread (my apologies if I missed something while reading/scanning the 3 pages of posts). As someone who was educated to be a lawyer this is a fairly simple Contract in a Magic Game. Adam made an offer where action by Nina would constitute acceptance, “Show me a counterspell” = offer; revealing cancel from hand = acceptance. This contract is valid and Adam can be held to it. In Magic Rules we allow contract of a verbal nature in section 4.2 of the MTR a Tournament Shortcut. “…if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.” Adam has proposed to bring the game to an end with him as the loosing player which is clear to Nina where the game state will end up and Nina has accepted in the way Adam laid out. I think most players believe that a player can concede at any time and that once a concession has been offered and accepted the game is over. In general I have no qualms holding Adam to his concession in this type of situation, if there is an argument about the type of counterspell being shown (gainsay etc.) I could see some actual room for discussion about whether or not the offer as intended was actually fulfilled (ie. the shortcut being accepted), but I am fine calling this a valid shortcut situation where judges can rule that Adam has conceded the match at this point Nina shows the cancel.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

There is a big difference between penalizing the player and holding him to his declared action.

If a player at 3 life casts Lightning Bolt at a Boros Reckoner, then realizes his mistakes and tries to take it back, are you penalizing him by holding him to his declared action? Not a chance.

Likewise, this player made a very clear statement about a concession (contingent upon a legally accessible part of the game for his opponent). You are just holding him to that declared action.

But how compares this to bluffing about future actions?
“If you don’t chump this you're dead”

Are concessions something that we want players to be able to bluff about?
I think there are already enough room for bluffing about game actions. :)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

But how compares this to bluffing about future actions?
“If you don’t chump this you're dead”

While there is obviously some situations where playing to a misunderstanding of a player works, I don't see anything about a concession where there needs be a “greater understanding of the game state” about concessions. Perhaps there's a bit of grey area here and room for judgment about “legality” here, but the “concede to a counter” situation doesn't seem that special to me.

Originally posted by Benjamin Klein:

(a whole bunch of good stuff, and…) “Show me a counterspell” = offer; revealing cancel from hand = acceptance. This contract is valid and Adam can be held to it.

This really does a good job of explaining my thoughts on this. (I guess I need an ‘O’ Like button? heh)

d:^D

Aaron Henner's post has a good example of why I would not hold a player to a concession here (“Show me the Splinter Twin.” (no 4th land)). I think if you polled those same pros discussed earlier in the thread, many of them would agree that they should not be held to conceding if the player shows a Twin, but not the 4th land to cast it that turn.

The player perspective is important to consider, but they often think about these things as they are likely to happen, not the theoretical dark places that judges go. Among players, there is a social contract that if you make a “I will scoop if you show me X” statement, you are actually dead to X. If you say you will scoop to Twin and don't mention the 4th land, that is an implied part of the contract. If you intentionally break the contract and use it to gain information, that's going to cost you social capital. There's also the matter of trust. You don't just make these kind of statement to random opponents. Generally, it is someone that you have some familiarity with and possibly rapport. You make a statement like that to save each other time when you both realize that you are in a position where the game is over if certain conditions are met.

To police this as judges seems difficult. We would have to start re-evaluating various definitions of free vs derived information and start parsing the language of these statements carefully.

“I'll scoop if you show me Path.” Opponent shows… Sorrow's Path.

Yes, we have rules to deal with situations like this with naming cards like Pithing Needle. I would not want to start applying them to concession statements. Let the players monitor that themselves. 99.9% of the time, they will correctly assess the board and the opponent to do this correctly.

Edited Riki Hayashi (June 12, 2014 01:51:28 PM)