Hello colleagues.

At the lats PTQ I judged I was presented with an interesting scenario that sparked much debate. I was hoping to hear what other judges have to say about it.

Adam and Nicole are playing a game at Comp REL. In his pre-combat main phase Adam says to Nicole, “If you show me a counter spell, I'll concede.” Nicole reveals Cancel in her hand. Adam says, “OK, go to attacks?” Nicole says, “No you have to concede now, I showed you my counter spell! Judge!”

How do you rule in this situation?

As long as it's not about the game state or something in-game, players can lie to their opponents all they want (you can even lie about some things in the game, but that's another topic).

Is this a very sporting action? No not at all. But I don't see any policy against it either.

Tough situation… Nothing illegal happened (Adam can bluff about future actions, Nicole can legaly reveal private information), so not much for us to do here.

But obviously, what Adam is doing is very not sporting, yet not Unsporting. I would remind him that his actions are legal, but will not make him anyone's favourite player, and that he might want to consider not doing stuff like this again.

I guess you could tell him that if he repeats this behaviour, the TO will refuse him as a player in the future because this is not what they want in their venue, but this is not primarily a Judge thing.

But remember: we can never ever force a player to concede!

I know some of you feel like this deserves some sort of penalty. Maybe you want to apply Improperly determining a winner. There are some important words in the definition of IDaW.


IPG 4.3
A player users or offers to use a method that is not part of the current game (including actions not legal in the current game) to determine the outcome of a game or match.

As Dustin pointed out.

Tough situation… Nothing illegal happened (Adam can bluff about future actions, Nicole can legally reveal private information), so not much for us to do here.

I would ask the player to not do that again. Just as a suggestion not as an official instruction. We really cant stop players from being shady. We can ask them not to be.

Interestingly, this was a topic of much discussion among senior judges recently.

During the Pro Tour in Valencia, this past February, we did a straw poll of pro players; without exception, they felt that this should NOT be a “valid bluff”, but instead Adam has conceded, and we should hold him to that. And, to a large degree, the senior judges arrived at that same conclusion.

As to the argument (which Adam will certainly offer) that Nicole didn't show a Counterspell, well … Counterspell is legal in Eternal formats, but neither Modern nor Standard, so Cancel probably meets the criteria Adam stated.

Were this Legacy, and Nicole being tapped out with only Force of Will as a conceivable “out”, Adam could say “show me a Force and I'll concede”, and then ignore a Cancel (who plays Cancel in Legacy!??!?). This isn't that situation, however; although the original post doesn't specify that it actually happened at the PTQ, the discussion is still framed in that context - and PTQs are definitely not Legacy or Vintage…

d:^D

I think there's some danger in requiring a follow-through on this bluff.
This danger is no more clear in the examples Scott is referring to. What
if the request is somewhat ambiguous? For instance:

Player A, playing Modern Affinity: “Show me a removal spell and I'll
concede.”
Player B: “Here's a Go for the Throat.”

Does player A have to concede because she worded her request poorly? I
doubt I would be the only judge uncomfortable with that resolution, yet for
it to be enforcable policy, there must be a consistent resolution. What
are the standards of communication that we must abide by?

I'm sure we all know that players do not always clearly communicate their
plays or intentions to their opponents, and I don't think we have any place
requiring players to potentially have to concede in such situations.

By policy as it stands, I don't believe we have any reason to force a
concession, and I don't think policy here needs to change in that regard.

a) Nicole satisfied the requirement that Adam stated. The card may not actually be named Counterspell, but she did show a spell that counters. Negate, Dissolve, Essence Scatter and a multitude of others would have been just as acceptable. Assuming the wording quoted above is the exact wording used, that is.

b) Adam's actions label him as a thoroughly unpleasant person. While I wouldn't rule an infraction, I would explain to him he is making enemies quickly with this behaviour. I would have a chat with the TO about this, and if this is a store-run event and this happens repeatedly I would recommend the TO deny Adam access to the venue since his behaviour is toxic for the spirit of the game and the store's community.

c) my gut feeling of justice tells me Adam should lose the game, but I do not believe the rules support that. IDaW doesn't apply I believe, since the offer involved only legal in-game actions. Revealing a card in your hand is not illegal.

d) I would advise Nicole she should be a bit more careful to trust her opponent's statements at Comp REL.

I will stay on Adam side here, you can say anything during the match, he could say “show me a #105 pokemon, and I will concede”. Nicole shows him Marowak, did Adam have responsibility to concede now?

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.

Funny that damaging the integrity of the event gets penalized, where damaging the integrity of gaming does not. Our IPG and JAR seem lacking for those infractions.

Matt Sauers
-L2, Indianapolis.

“Funny that damaging the integrity of the event gets penalized, where
damaging the integrity of gaming does not. Our IPG and JAR seem lacking for
those infractions”

Great point indeed. But I remember having a few months ago a player DQed
for something related to lying to a judge, and all of a sudden a lot of
people at competitive tournaments become silent as a tomb. Every time the
opponent asked for something like “what does that card do”, or “how stron
is your Tarmo”, they simply pointed the card silently.

What I'm trying to say is that in case somebody is a competitive guy, he'll
always find a way to get as much advantage as he can without breaking the
rules. The key is not hardening the rules, but educate them better.

Carlos


2014-06-07 17:20 GMT+02:00 Matt Sauers <

To be clear, this situation did not come up at our PTQ, we just discussed it there.

I think we all agree that this is not the type of behavior we want at tournaments, but the question is, is it punishable under the rules? I believe it is. Just like casting Cabal Therapy, pre-emptively naming a card, then asking if it resolves, you can't change your mind.

I believe that holding Adam to a concession may be a little too harsh, that's the equivalent of giving a game loss for what Adam thought was a clever bluff. I think a CPV is the closest fit (though certainly not a perfect fit) and I'd issue that penalty. Alternatively, I can see a judge just saying “Don't do that again,” and giving out a USC minor if Adam continues, for disobeying a direct instruction from a tournament official.

However, I think this is not the type of behavior that judges should allow at tournaments and there should be repercussions. Those are my two cents

CPV is very specifically for violations of the Player Communication policy. Do you think that has happened here?

I'm curious if this is a TO issue rather than a judge issue. Could someone be removed by a TO for “being an excessive jerk” without specifically breaking the IPG?

MTR 1.4 states that the following are not permitted to compete:
“Anyone prohibited by federal, state, or local laws, the rules of the Tournament Organizer, or by a Venue's management.”

I'm not a fan of the idea to use “the TO stick” whenever something happens that the IPG doesn't cover, but in this case it's about toxic behaviour that can chase away good customers and harm a player community. Putting myself into the TO's shoes I would want to *make* it my issue.

I think the best solution here is to have a stern chat with Adam about what kind of bluffs are acceptable and explain that what he did is not very nice and instruct him to not do this again. If he does it again in the same tourney, apply USC Minor for failure to follow the request of a tournament official and from that point onwards you have the upgrade path.

The thing I'm not so sure on is whether you can give USC-Minor the first time on the basis that Adams actions where disruptive towards Nicole and affected Nicole's comfort level. If I'm Nicole in this situation then my comfort level has definitely been affected.