This question is from Magic Game Day this evening, a Standard constructed event.

Player A had Liliana of the Veil on the battlefield and activated her second ability targeting player B. Player B controlled only a Restoration Angel at the time. In response to Liliana's ability, player B cast Selesnya Charm with its third mode. And then player B paused. With no verbage from player A, he resolved the charm and sacrificed the knight when Liliana's ability resolved. At this point, player A cast Psychic Strike, targeting the charm (or some other instant that could cancel the charm).

I let it happen, but added a verbal caution that player A should have played the counterspell after player B cast the charm. With regards to communication and shortcuts, player A hadn't actually *said* anything that indicated he passed priority, but I felt player B did leave ample time for A to respond. And there's the weirdness that player A only cast the counterspell after seeing what B was planning to do with it.

Did I handle this correctly?

Short of having observed the match in progress and drawing a different conclusion based on A's actions or the way the problem gets escalated to me in the first place, I would likely rule the same way, including suggestions for both players - player A needs to speak up and say he may have a response before allowing the charm to resolve, and B shouldn't take silence as an acknowledgement by default.

Reinforcing good communication is step one to reducing troublesome judge calls!

Originally posted by Roger Dunn:

sacrificed the knight when Liliana's ability resolved

I'm curious on this point: how did player B come to the conclusion that Lili's ability was clear to resolve without confirmation from player A?
Because, if there was some sort of acknowledgement that Lili's ability can resolve from both players (even just simple gestures like a thumbs up, a nod, player A not stopping player B from putting the knight token into play, etc.), I don't think player A should be given the benefit of doubt.