I saw this discussion on reddit. As we might acknowledge that cases like this might happen, I would like to know as per IPG, what should be the proper way to handle this.

The reddit could be found here Rules Lawyering.

So last night at my LGS I was playing against someone and I was running Mono Black Aggro. I was at 2 life game two and decided to Thoughtseize him to see if he has any wonky sb cards(cause who doesn't love free info). He looked at the pad and chuckled and scooped his cards up and says good game. Now technically since Thoughtseize doesn't lose me the game until it resolves, does that mean my opponent would lose since he scooped with it on the stack? I'm not trying to see if I can get free wins but it was a really interesting question that's been bugging me. It is already in game 2 where sideboarding would have already occurred.

I would see this as a game loss to the opponent, but there was also discussion that this was also a OOOS in resolving the thoughtseize assumed by the opponent and instead a GRV issued.

Added: There was a discussion in Reddit too by a certain someone who mentioned this too.

'm an L2 judge and I very much agree that it is not a concession but incorrectly resolving Thoughtseize. That is a GRV and a Warning at Competitive REL. If the player that scooped up his cards actually believed that he won then I would give him the win. He knew that when the Thoughtseize resolved he would win, so he skipped to that point.

He also made this point regarding the reason for this.

The difference is that you are required to reveal the morph to prove that the card you had in play face down actually was a morph. With Thoughtseize you do not need to reveal it to prove that you had cards in your hand. The part of the IPG that you are referencing is used for search effects like Idyllic Tutor where you need to prove that you actually got an Enchantment and or else Idyllic Tutor is straight up a Demonic Tutor for 2W.

The part from the IPG references failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one.

Nowhere in showing your hand from a Thoughtseize does it require you to reveal information to verify the legality of anything.

Since we can all agree that the player did not intend to concede and that he was clearly winning after the Thoughtseize resolving I would allow him to win but give a warning at Competitive and a stern talking to at Regular.

Any thoughts?

Edited Daniel Chew (Nov. 11, 2014 11:42:47 AM)

The guy who scooped his cards definitely loses, the player who cast
thoughtseize did so for a good reason, not to troll, and he is entitled to
the information of what is in the opponent's hand. The opponent's options
were to reveal his hand or to concede, and he chose the latter.
On Nov 10, 2014 7:37 PM, “Daniel Chew” <

I agree that the opponent who scooped loses. OoOS only is possible if we arrive at the same point with the same information at every dicision point after it. Since the AP in this case should know NAP's hand but doesn't know because of the fast scoop, this can't be OoOS. This is the same way a concession bevor Mind Slaver resolves works and at Competitive REL the players should know how to communicate this

Why are we speaking about OoOS ?
You dont lose during the resolution of a spell for being at 0 life or less. You lose when sba are checked.

And yes, the opponent clearly chose to scoop. It is his right. Maybe for wrong reason, for a bad knowledge on how work magie games, but he did.

Added more to this scenario on the main post from the excerpt from the reddit link.

I think this situation is philosophically similar to this one: AP is attacking for lethal, NAP shows him a Lightning Bolt (AP is at 3). AP shrugs and NAP scoops up his permanents, at which point AP calls the judge and asks whether this means NAP has conceded the match. It clearly does not, as that would encourage a lot of rules-lawyering in the sense of “waiting to see who phisically picks up their cards first”. The natural situation in both cases is clear and tricking your opponent (or yourself, for that matter) into conceding due to a nitpick should not be encouraged.

The first post mentions the difference between the given situation and what we consider GRV for failure to reveal.

If the situation was stopped in a reasonable time limit (before he actually shuffled all the cards into his deck), we can reveal all the cards and his hand is going to be among those cards. We talk to both players, explaining the importance of clear communication, apply the Warning for GRV and instruct them to move to the next game. The Thoughtseize controller's opponent won the game.

Originally posted by Daniel Chew:

He also made this point regarding the reason for this.

The difference is that you are required to reveal the morph to prove that the card you had in play face down actually was a morph. With Thoughtseize you do not need to reveal it to prove that you had cards in your hand. The part of the IPG that you are referencing is used for search effects like Idyllic Tutor where you need to prove that you actually got an Enchantment and or else Idyllic Tutor is straight up a Demonic Tutor for 2W.

The part from the IPG references failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one.

Nowhere in showing your hand from a Thoughtseize does it require you to reveal information to verify the legality of anything.

Since we can all agree that the player did not intend to concede and that he was clearly winning after the Thoughtseize resolving I would allow him to win but give a warning at Competitive and a stern talking to at Regular.

Any thoughts?

But he did pick up his cards with the intention that the game was over. But it wasn't. And a scoop is final, we can't fix the game state after one. So the game has to be over like he intended, just not with the result he had in mind.

Mitja Bosnic
I think this situation is philosophically similar to this one: AP is attacking for lethal, NAP shows him a Lightning Bolt (AP is at 3). AP shrugs and NAP scoops up his permanents, at which point AP calls the judge and asks whether this means NAP has conceded the match. It clearly does not, as that would encourage a lot of rules-lawyering in the sense of “waiting to see who phisically picks up their cards first”. The natural situation in both cases is clear and tricking your opponent (or yourself, for that matter) into conceding due to a nitpick should not be encouraged.

But in that case the shrug can be interpreted as a scoop. What in this scenario signifies a scoop? NAP wrongfully thought casting Thoughtseize was a concession, but AP has a very valid reason to not concede until after its resolution, so it's just a mistake on NAP's part.

In your scenario, AP better be careful with his words if we ask him what he intended to say with his shrug.

So to clarify, it's about the first player who concedes, not necessarily the first player who scoops.

Edited Toby Hazes (Nov. 11, 2014 12:08:40 PM)

I'm not a fan of “he picked up his cards therefore he conceded”. It's very clear that he picked up his cards because he believed the game was over. It seems pretty harsh for us to deliberately misinterpret his actions. In a situation like this, I would like try to recreate the board state (which should be possible in most cases) and have them carry on. I'm not sure would I assign a GRV for resolving Thoughtseize incorrectly, as that hasn't been done. This is purely a misunderstanding (albeit, a messy one). I'm sure the whole incident has caused the opponent enough concern that he won't forget how Thoughtseize works in future!

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/6236/

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

October, 2005, in Los Angeles, Pro Tour Head Judge Gijsbert Hoogendijk had to decide a similar situation, near the end of Day 2. Two players, one thought he'd won, or at least that his victory was certain; when he scooped his cards, the opponent claimed that was a concession.

There were a number of other factors, and the discussion among the high-level judges present led to Gis deciding that the act of scooping, without any prior communication, was a concession.

That decision set a precedent, and that's held for nearly 8 years.

It's also, as Gareth noted, an easy explanation for players: don't scoop until you confirm that you've won.

Why can't we just issue a GL for failure to reveal? Since the intention of the opponent was to see what cards he/she was using and the opponent didn't revealed his hand previous to the act of scooping up.

Because “failure to reveal” GRV upgrades are only when cards aren't
revealed to verify that an action taken was legal.

I can concede with Thoughtseize on the stack and not show you my hand. That
is legal.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jose Luis Arrieta <
forum-13960-8ae3@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Why can't we just issue a GL for failure to reveal? Since the intention of
> the opponent was to see what cards he/she was using and the opponent didn't
> revealed his hand previous to the act of scooping up.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/90090/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13960/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/13960/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>



–
*-Eric Levine*

*Marketing & Event Specialist*
*ChannelFireball.com* <http://ChannelFireball.com>

There's an important point that people seem to be assuming in this thread: that the player “obviously” did not mean to concede. That's not something we can assume. We have to ask.

So, I would ask the scooping player if he intended to concede. If he says “yes”, we're done. If he says “no, the Thoughtseize will kill him”, then I would make him show his hand. If that's not possible because cards have been shuffled up, I would give a GRV and a Stern Lecture.

The idea the opponent should be forced into a concession that he didn't intend is punitive and off-book, IMO.

I have to strongly agree with Jeff. If the opponent didn't wish to concede and we can restore the situation back to where the hand (or all the cards that were not in the library) can be seen, then we should do that, not stick to a decision that is clearly unnatural to the game.

In the case that restoring the board board state is not possible due to a shuffle, is the GRV penalty a warning? Where does the situation progress from that point on? If the game simply continues, I suppose NAP will be revealing an empty hand now that everything is in their library and then AP loses the game after the life loss. Does NAP then win the game with a GRV warning, in this case?

What Game Rule has been Violated?