Something interesting came up in the coverage of GP - Milan. I can't remember the player (but he was a high profile one) and he was being interviewed by Rich Hagon. The whole concept of the interview was a deck tech of his Jeskai Ascendancy deck and Rich asked him to play out a hand to show the viewers how the deck operated.

Any at some point Rich grabs a card and says something along the lines of ‘so you cast this, draw, etc’ - but as he does this he puts the card in the ‘graveyard’, at which point the player stops him and says “No, you don't put it in the graveyard because then you are suggesting to your opponent you have finished resolving the spell and you have missed your Jeskai Ascendancy triggers”

Obviously in the most technical sense this is true - but is this even remotely the correct way to handle the situation? I can just see some players looking at that and thinking it's a great opportunity to rules lawyer their opponent. Would you as a judge rule this way?

I guess a pro player needs to be as technical as possible and perhaps this is just something that was drilled into him to prevent any chance of a miscommunication - but I thought it was a bit of a worry having it stated as it was in the deck tech.

Thoughts? Comments?

If Ascendancy player had clearly announced his triggers I would be fine with this obvious out of order sequence, however I would also recommend to that player to do it correctly next time to avoid misunderstandings.

The player is technically correct from a strict view of the rules and players making sure the game state is clear to everyone especially in case there might be responses after the triggers so knowing the spell is still on the stack is useful.

However as long as the player has not resolved the spells effect I would likely allow them to mention their trigger here and it be out of order sequencing

Players put spells in the yard all the time before they finish resolving them. I have no problem with this sort of OoOS. The key thing here is to make sure the mention their triggers and/or loot before trying to resolve the spell. Also, in Legacy, I would not allow this because it would mess up graveyard order.

because … you are suggesting to your opponent

I think this is the key phrase in what was said; this pro is actually teaching a good habit - namely, clear communication.

While we as judges probably wouldn't support a “rules lawyer” opponent insisting that he'd missed those triggers, and OoOS helps us in that regard … well, why not just avoid that, entirely, through clear communication and precise play?

I say, kudos to that player!

d:^D