Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

What Game Rule has been Violated?

Didn't resolve a spell correctly.

The Thoughtseize player's first response really should be “hey, you have to reveal your hand before I lose!” - and not “hey, I just got a free win!” Granted, his line of play was taken with the certainty that he'd lose after the spell resolved, but he wants the spell to resolve fully.

It's a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation for the opponent, you rewind to the point of the error if possible and carry on - i.e., have him reveal what was in his hand, unless it's already shuffled into his deck. And then the game ends.

Toby, good job digging up that other thread, where I talked about scooping and concessions - but here I agree with J-Mo, and this isn't that other thing.

d:^D

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

What Game Rule has been Violated?

It is believed the player being Thoughtseized failed to reveal his hand.

Jeff Morrow
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 big thing the player who is being Thoughtseized may not understand is that his opponent won't lose until SBA says he has to. Thoughtseize will need to fully resolve for that to occur. The life lose is not an additional cost so he won't lose just from it going on the stack.

Being new to judging this is all hypothetical to me, and with my limited understanding this is what i would do:

The first thing I would do is look at the game state and try to determine what the problem is. I see a Thoughtsieze on the stack and NAP player scooped.

I could determine NAP has resolved Thoughtsieze wrong. I would give NAP GPE-GRV (Improper resolving of thoughtsieze). I have a couple problems with going the GPE-GRV route:
1.)It requires me to determine that NAP has resolved the AP's spell wrong. It seems bad to allow players to resolve their opponents spells.
2.) It leaves me with two options for additional remedy. One is a rewind, unfortunately this is impossible. Two, leave the game state as it is. That leaves Thoughtsieze on the stack and NAP scooped (possibly with his whole deck “in hand” lol). This is certainly an odd game state to walk away from, which makes me uncomfortable with going route.
However, NAP resolving thoughtsieze wrong is the what has “really” happened. IMO this option is the lowest penalty possible which I like.

Or I could go the “Sorry bro you scooped” route:
I always make an honest attempt to apply the lowest penalty possible. Determining NAP has conceded is a steep penalty. That being said, NAP has scooped before the game was over. In dong so, he has denied AP significant information. IMO denying this type of information has quite a high potential for abuse.

I think both options have merit. To me the the combination of: 1 the potential for abuse, and 2 the un-real game state that would be left by the GRV route, lean me toward the “Sorry bro, you scooped” decision.

Any input is appreciated

Edited Clynn Wilkinson (Nov. 13, 2014 04:54:19 AM)

I appreciate all the input for this currently. Possibility of rewind is okay as long as no cards were shuffled in yet. The problem is when everything is already piled up before one can determined what's in the hand.

Do we use our discretion here as that it is only a GRV or rather a game loss. There isn't yet a definite answer for this, so it will be great to know if or what any action to be taken for future conditions should it occur.

Originally posted by Daniel Chew:

only a GRV or rather a game loss

Game Loss? For what? One of two things has happened here: either NAP failed to resolve Thoughtseize correctly (GPE-GRV, Warning, reveal what you can), or NAP conceded to avoid having to reveal. AP stopped him as soon as he noticed, so no FtMGS for AP - but if he insists on “my opponent scooped, that means he conceded”, ask him to stop being argumentative and let's hope he doesn't venture into UC-Minor territory.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The Thoughtseize player's first response really should be “hey, you have to reveal your hand before I lose!” - and not “hey, I just got a free win!”

Of course it shouldn't be “hey, I just got a free win!” but I think the other situation depends a lot on the actual communication that could have happened between the players.

If I play Thougtsize and I see my opponent scooping I can perfectly assume that he prefers to scoop and concede instead of showing me his hand.
I know this is a strange scenario but if the scooping player gives no clue about thinking that he has won I can see it happening.

Sure, it's fine to think “hey, he scooped” - but it's not OK to insist on that outcome when it's obvious that's not what really happened. And I'll stand by what I said - AP knows he's about to lose, but wants to gain information first; his responsibility as outlined under the Failure to Maintain Game State Philosophy, is to try to prevent (further) damage to the game state. Saying “hey, you have to reveal” would be an example of that. Saying “oh, look, free win”? Not so much…

d:^D

It seems to me we have an excellent opportunity in this situation to explore the importance of communication. Firstly we can ask the Thoughtseize player why they played the Thoughtseize, I hoped my opponent would scoop early is not an answer that will get rewarded in my book, then ask the snooping player why they scooped, if they give an answer that implies keeping information secret then sure they conceded to hide information, mostly anything else is a reveal now or GRV. Then once we've fixed this we can remind the player who played the Thoughtseize to mention they are playing it to get information before dieing and the player who scooped to confirm the spell resolved their opponent is dead before finishing a game

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but I think we can cut through a lot of the miasma with this sort of situation by just asking NAP why they scooped up their cards. It's true that it may not be possible to get AP any of the information that they were looking for, but I feel that if NAP were to simply indicate that they scooped up to prepare for sideboarding (because they won the game) that's sufficient to then say “ok, well, you didn't resolve that spell properly then” rather than jumping straight to the “scoop = concede” plan.

Can I add an element here?
If there is a platinium angel under the AP's control, and that the opponent forgot the card. I assume that in this case, NAP just has conceded without commiting any infraction?

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

Can I add an element here?
If there is a platinium angel under the AP's control, and that the opponent forgot the card. I assume that in this case, NAP just has conceded without commiting any infraction?

Again, you lead with “why did you scoop up your cards?” In the likely situation where they say “I thought I had won the game” then you penalise as before, but the fix is either rewind (if possible), or leave the board state as is (which will probably mean of his cards are now in his library). Somewhat similar to the “accidentally shuffled my hand into my library” fix. Essentially, “that sucks, but you'll have to play on with no cards”. And the usual “please be more careful”.

I remember reading this thread and enjoying the mix of very insightful comments and some very stubborn Redditors.

I also like that you quoted my comments even though I agreed with the comment of http://www.reddit.com/user/SannouYousuke. That being said it was almost a level up moment of “getting” that intent does matter sometimes, and that Magic really isn't a game of gotcha!