This came up at a local event. I was not participating or judging it myself. This is what I was told and asked:

In a 10 man FNM event the prices are distributed using the rare redraft. The event was played 3 rounds. After the 2nd round 3 players had 6 points. Usually with this kind of events the 2 top players would draw to get the first picks in the rare redraft.
2 of those 6 point guys play against each other the 3rd player is paired down in the last round. During the last round the 3rd (down paired) player looses his match. The other 2 players are still playing. One player leads by 1-0. They know that that the 3rd player lost (neigbouring table) and they decide to draw their match.
Is that even allowed?
According to the MTR 2.4 it is possible, but don't they use outside information which is not allowed?

I would not be sure how to handle this.

Edited Markus Offergeld (Aug. 19, 2013 04:16:01 AM)

There is not much you can do since the MTR explicitely tells which kind of information falls under the outside assistance rule: “…play advice or hidden information about his or her match…”. I don't remember which other thread we already discussed this but the quintessence was that the players are not allowed to stand up and go to other tables to seek for information about other players results but when someone tells them it is neither hidden information nor play advice so not much you can do about it according to the rules since tournament math is no play advice and not related to any information about his or her match.


edit: here it is somehow discussed: click me

Edited Christian Genz (Aug. 19, 2013 05:05:27 AM)

Yes, that is allowed. Those two players couldn't ask someone else to tell them the result of that match, nor could they leave their match to go find out - but since the result is obvious, they can use that knowledge.

If it is not allowed to ASK someone to tell them/find out the result of that match (as stated in this thread), how is it allowed to TELL (or be told by) someone the result of that match (as basically stated in the Thread Christian linked, and in threads before, as seen in Joshuas' quote from that Thread - I can't find those prior threads because the forumsearch still is broken )?

If I can be told the information I am seeking, I should be allowed to ask for it, in my opinion. Otherwise, the last round at a larger tournament becomes a game of who has informed friends with them at the higher tables.

I should not have a disadvantage over another player, because his playgroup, prior to the tourney, they made the arrangement that ‘if someone is at a table where it matters and you are done, bring him all the results of the other tables that matter, since you are allowed to do so, but he cannot ask you to’, and my playgroup/friends and I did not.

Also, if giving the info is not forbidden, why is searching for the info?

What part of the MTR does asking for tournament math information break, which giving said information is not breaking?
It clearly cannot be considered OA, because if giving this information is not outside assistance, asking for it cannot be - since noone is asking for outside information.


Appendix: Joshua's quote from the other Thread:

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

We have established on other threads that OA relates specifically to assistance playing a game of Magic. It does not apply to tournament math. (And policy is not written naively. If it were meant to cover tournament math, it would.)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I will enforce the policy as it is stated here by the L5s, but if anyone ever comes up to me (before a tournament, or just at some random point in time not even connected to a tournament, because he just wants to know and knows that I am a judge) and asks ‘can I ask my friend for the results of other tables?’, I, right now, feel the need to answer him with ‘no, you may not ASK him to get it, but he can TELL you the results if he wants to, you just may not ask for them’, since I want to tell him what he can and cannot do. The auto-followup-question ‘well that makes no sense whatsoever, why cant I ask for that then if he is allowed to tell me?’ I'd now have to answer with ‘I don’t know either, but Scott Marshall said so.'
And that just feels bad…

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Aug. 19, 2013 09:10:54 AM)

MTR 5.2 has the following to say on the topic:

Originally posted by MTR 5.2:

Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.

I'd say that this depends on the meaning of “go to great lengths”, but I would hardly interpret asking a friend to check (while continuing to play your match) as going to great lengths.

Yeah, that is the only thing I found considering this, too, but the question for the information can hardly be considered ‘going to great lengths’ as long as it is not impacting the game beeing played itself.


Followupquestion: Since the question is not allowed, and there is no infraction linked to this (if it were REL Comp+), I'm guessing direct instruction not to do that is in order if the question is asked?

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Aug. 19, 2013 09:30:19 AM)

I was just about to quote MTR 5.2, but someone got here first. :p

There's also Example D for Slow Play: “A player gets up from his seat to look at standings… without permission” (and I wouldn't grant permission for that).

Note that the first part of MTR 5.2, about “in conjunction with other matches”, is meant to cover things like “hey, guys, if you draw we can draw, too - OK?”

As for “go to great lengths” - think about the disruption. If the two players stop playing to find out about other match results, it becomes more disruptive with each minute that they're not playing. If a player stops and hollers across the room “hey, Frank, did you win?” - it's disruptive. If a player turns as Frank walks behind him and asks “did you win?”, that's fine.

So, if the match next to them finishes and they say “hey, who won?” - I'd be fine with that. If they notice a few minutes later that the match is over, and call a Judge to ask “who won that match?”, I wouldn't answer. Similarly, if they interrupt their match to get their friend's attention, so they can ask who won that match - it's disruptive.

Philip, your examples are a tad extreme, and I disagree with your assertion that players who have teammates or friends at the event can't enjoy any advantages of that. They just have to do so within some common-sense guidelines.

To be fair, my wording was poor: “can't ask someone else to tell them” - they can, in situations where it's not disruptive or delaying. It happens all the time - friends walk by and say “I won” or “I lost”, or even give a thumbs-up/thumbs-down signal. And matches playing next to each other are always keeping track of game score, as well as match results.

Well, so what if the two player decide to “wait” for the other result. They could both just draw, play a creature, spell or whatever and say “go” without trying to win and without falling in the “slow play” criteria? What then?

personally I am not happy with the possiblity to ID, but then no one can prevent them from conceeding or “waiting” to force the desired result or can we?

In other sports however like soccer it is not allowed to force a result. Teams will be disqualified if found guilty, but finding that out is hard to do.

Edited Markus Offergeld (Aug. 20, 2013 04:41:19 AM)

I think it is an unwritten rule to not make a rule you can't enforce.
Which is why we've made it clear that anyone can concede or draw at any
point as long as it is not in exchange for something.

Yes, this means that 2 players in one match can “wait and see” the result
of another match.
I do not see how you can prevent something like that from happening,
without going through significant efforts, such as putting the two matches
in two different rooms and have a judge stand by both.
Considering that can't always be done, and thus enforced at all events, the
choice has been made to not make that a rule.

This is my understanding of the current policy.

Kind regards,
Richard Drijvers


2013/8/20 Markus Offergeld <forum-5520-1fdb@apps.magicjudges.org>

If they are making no real attempt to actually play (since they are keeping tabs on another match), then it sounds to me like they are both playing slowly.

I'd warn both players for slow play and tell them that if they continue this ‘act’, a second slow play penalty will be a game loss for both of them.

That should focus their efforts on their own match.

Originally posted by Markus Offergeld:

what if the two player decide to “wait” … without falling in the “slow play” criteria

There really isn't much we can do, as Richard noted. But that's only one factor behind the why, when we allow players to concede or draw at any time (before the result is final).

Andy has his infinite combo all set up, and Ned sees that; part of Andy's combo reveals cards in Ned's deck, and Ned wants to keep a few things secret - so he concedes.

Arlene has, in Norby's opinion, “inevitability”, but her win condition is quite slow; Norby wants to be sure he has time left in the round to win games 2 and 3 - so he concedes.

Amanda and Nate realize that they probably can't finish the current game any time soon - stalemate, whatever - and want to play more interesting games, so they agree to draw game 1 and proceed to games 2, 3, and maybe 4.

Arthur and Nick play a very slow game 1, and realize that they won't have much time after the round to get lunch - so they agree to draw and go grab some food.

I could go on, and on … but I think I've made my point.

As for disallowing IDs, the real result is that we encourage what would be illegal behavior - artificially slowing the game to force a “natural” draw. Hey, if the players prefer 1 point each to 3 for one of them, fine - let them stop wasting their time and submit that result.

One of the often-overlooked factors that lead to IDs: when players in the final round(s) ID to secure their position, it's because they've already earned that position through the earlier rounds. It's one of the rewards for winning a lot.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

One of the often-overlooked factors that lead to IDs: when players in the final round(s) ID to secure their position, it's because they've already earned that position through the earlier rounds. It's one of the rewards for winning a lot.

I agree with that and I think that this is a good argument if it ever comes up in an event