Several judges (Kim Warren on the JAR blog, and Scott Marshall on these forums, at least) say that, as long we're not playing in an event (which, on Competitive, we're obviously not), we should look at face-down morphs of players to verify that they indeed have the Morph ability.

I believe the rationale for this is that we will detect the error sooner than at the end of the game, and that players will feel safer from cheating because they get to know that we verify morph legality.

However, it will also cause disruption to the game. We interrupt the game just to look at a face-down card which, in the absurdly high majority of cases, will have Morph. And in case it doesn't, it will be revealed at the end of the game anyway. It has also been noted that very few players cheat on purpose with morphs because it's very hard to pull off.

So, do you look at face-down morphs during tournaments at Competitive REL, and why?

That was only recommended for Regular REL, since there is not possible to
give out Game Loss for not revealing face-down cards at the end of the game
and thus making it possible to win the game and shuffle away non-morph
face-down cards, which creates potential for abuse (unlike Competitive REL,
where this potential is almost zero).

2014-10-08 15:17 GMT+02:00 Petr Hudecek <

Petr, I didn't use “should”, I explained that we could look at them, in order to assure other players that everything is OK. I suggest reviewing my post again.

My post did appear in the Regular REL forum, but the suggestion is also valid for Comp REL.

d:^D

I cannot figure out why face-down cards are looked at at the end of the gameto begin with? I've thought about this a fair amount and cannot come up with a reason of why it is necessary to look at the morphs when the game ends. If I had a morph in play when the game ended and we go to game 2 or 3, then you didn't get to see that card. Why do I have to reveal it and show you what I have? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

You have to reveal it so the opponent can verify the card actually has Morph.

Why? Because the rules say so.

Originally posted by CR 707.9:

If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents and spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.

Failing to comply with that rule is a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation; the normal penalty is a Warning, but

IPG 2.5
An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one.

d:^D

It is done to avoid cheating.
The face down card must be revealed to show that it actually has Morph, and not just some basic land or any random card, that its controller don't need at that point in game.

If we let the players conceal their face down card after the game ends, some players could just “cast” their extra lands as a creature, and attack for the win (with the help of haste effect, etc), and after that, they could just swiftly scoop up their card without revealing that the face down creature they just cast, wasn't actually a morph.

The rule is there, to avoid things like that.

To be very clear on this - the JAR blog by definition refers to Regular REL. When I suggest courses of action there, I am only considering Regular REL, not Competitive REL!

At Competitive REL, I think that looking at face-down Morphs is unnecessary as the penalty for a player not revealing them is so high, meaning that Cheating in this way is very heavily disincentivised - it's hard to gain an advantage, as you pointed out.

At Regular REL, you don't automatically get a Game Loss for failing to reveal your face-down Morphs. As such, there is at least a perception of a higher incentive to cheat, and taking small actions like this (which do not have to be disruptive - you don't have to stop a game and check every face-down card; just take a look at one near the edge of the battlefield every now and then) can help to reassure players that we are being vigilant and are ready to do something about someone attempting to cheat in this way.

I was actually referring to another post of Scott Marshall, which was posted in the Competitive REL forum:

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/12490/?page=1#post-80270

I understood that as a recommendation to look at morphs even at Competitive RELs.

Yeah, that post does imply “should” for both being pro-active with opening announcements (which we should do), and looking at face-down cards (which we can do). I'm OK with people reading it as “you should (look at Morphs)”, assuming they're careful. If you don't feel you can do so carefully - i.e., without revealing hidden information or otherwise disrupting the game state - then don't do it.

Originally posted by Petr Hudecek:

I believe the rationale for this is that we will detect the error sooner

No, the philosophy is that, when players see us checking, they'll get the message: “don't try to cheat!”

Originally posted by Petr Hudecek:

However, it will also cause disruption to the game. We interrupt the game

There's no need to interrupt anything; as I said, if you can't do it discreetly, don't try.

But let's dig a bit deeper there - how much disruption is it, really? 3 seconds? 5? maybe even 10??!? Isn't that a small price to pay for the message we're trying to send?

When we “swoop” for deck checks, we try to be subtle & secretive until the moment we announce, clearly, to everyone within earshot, “deck check!” Once the players present and it's time for us to swoop, we do so quite disruptively - often interrupting the thought processes of surrounding players. Does that mean we should stop doing deck checks? Of course not - we're sending a very clear message to the tournament as a whole, “Hey, we are doing deck checks, don't even think about pre-sideboarding for game 1 (etc)!”

d:^D

Are we only concerned about a disruption based on time? I am concerned that this is not accurately characterized as a mere disruption (akin to a random loud noise) but a direct intervention as described in the General Philosophy of our IPG.

“A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating. ”
And thanks to the Wiki Judges, the annotation for clarity:
“Judges are there for the players. Our services are needed when a rule has been violated, a player has some need, or there is a delicate situation like an argument and it’s necessary to calm the players down. When their assistance is not needed, judges should not interfere with matches. That means no comments about game actions, no risk of giving advice, and no disruption of the player’s concentration. Let players play. Keep in mind this doesn't mean you have to be a robot. You can still chat with players, and joke around with them, just don't interrupt their games.”

I would be concerned that “intervening” by inspecting game elements this way might put a player off their normal strategic thought process. This effect is often unavoidable… I have had players become unnerved simply because I wanted to watch a few minutes of their interesting game. Still, I think I would prefer if there was some additional reason beyond general concern/curiosity before we started physically interrupting a Competitive match in progress. Could our concern not be adequately and less disruptively satisfied by casually reminding the match to reveal Morphs at the end of the game?

While I trust that the majority of Judges would be discreet and discerning about how and why… and under what circumstances… they would inspect a Morph, I worry that some of this discussion may be interpreted as authorization to do so casually in a police-like way (or worse to hunt witches).

Forgive the Lawyer terms, but given a reasonable probable cause, I agree with Scott and Kim that inspecting Morphs is something that we can and should do. I do advise care and discretion so that we do not cause a greater issue by trying to prevent one.

Thanks for hearing my opinion.