I posted something very similar to this on Reddit on Monday, but the discussion got too bogged down in the details of the scenario and the actual question I was trying to address never came up.

Modern Tournament, Adam plays Pithing Needle and says ‘Shackles’ with no other means of indicating a card. Nate has a Vedalken Shackles in play.

Nate knows that there is a card named Shackles and decides to say nothing over what he believes to be a legal play. However, Nate does not realize that Shackles is not Modern legal and thus is cannot be legally named. We have 2 cards (Gelid Shackles and Vedalken Shackles) that are format legal and could technically be meant by the use of the word Shackles.

Nate announces the ability of Vedalken Shackles, Adam points to Pithing Needle, Nate says you named Shackles not Vedalken Shackles and Shackles is a card, judge is called.

Now we have an illegal card named with two cards that could be indicated by the word used, and as we don't account for the game state when making a ruling we have an illegally named card for Pithing Needle, and since there is more than one card in the format with the word Shackles on it we can't say that the card was uniquely identified. After warnings are given, Adam has to name a card, Adam names Vedalken Shackles.

So after all that, my question: do we allow the ability of Vedalken Shackles resolve since it was a legal play when announced, or does that get rewound? Again, if you want to have a discussion on the rules-lawyering style of play Nate exhibits here (which is worth having) please do so in another thread.

That's quite the angle shoot. I would probably ask Nate if he was entirely confident that Adam was naming Vedalken Shackles, and in the 99% of the time that he says yes, I'd say “then Adam communicated to you his decision to choose Vedalken Shackles” and not let the ability be activated.

I don't allow the ability to resolve, because it was activated illegally. Just because Nate was pretending not to know that Adam named Vedalken Shackles doesn't make it so.

I'd ask Nate “What did you think he meant when he said ‘Shackles’?” “Is
this the first time either of you have played the V.Shackles in this match?”

We have confusion in the communication used between the players. I would
use this as an opportunity to educate Nate on some policy. Players are not
allowed to create ambiguity with language to gain an advantage. MTR 4.2
Adam made a choice that was a nickname for a card and Nate realized that he
could try and use the nickname to mean a different card than what Adam was
intending. We clear up the problem in communication. We ask Adam to please
clarify the name.

I only use this detail of the rules when dealing with someone who wants to
rules lawyer a “gotcha” moment.

Also issue Nate a GRV for activating the shackles.

I'm with Mr. Stansfield. Sometimes the most important question you can ask
during an investigation is “… Really?”

In the situation here, Nate knows that Shackles is a card, and that's what was named. His error is in not realizing that the card Shackles is not format legal. Is it gaming the system? Of course. Would he have gotten away with it in a Legacy tournament where his opponent would have named a legal card? According to what I've seen before, the answer to that is also yes. The wrinkle here is that Shackles is not a format legal card nor is Vedalken Shackles the only legal card that could be meant by simply naming shackles.

In the situation as I've described it, as obvious as it may be that the intent was to name Vedalken Shackles, saying Shackles does not uniquely identify the card. As much as I may want to at times, I can't judge based on a player's intent, I have to go on what they actually did. We are to uphold the rules. Sometimes in doing so we don't get to do we feel is right or fair.

Also, this is a hypothetical just so I can satisfy my curiosity as to what happens if some sort of judge call changes the gamestate after a spell or ability has been announced but before it's on the stack. I'm just looking for a ‘we rewind or don’t rewind because of x and y reasons.' The naming conversation I've been having for the past 2 days now, I know that pretty much every judge feels that I'm being overly harsh if I rule that Shackles isn't clear enough and hand out warnings in this situation.

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

Would he have gotten away with it in a Legacy tournament where his opponent would have named a legal card?

I don't think I'd rule that the player was trying to name just Shackles in Legacy, especially with Vedalken Shackles on the battlefield already.
Sure, the player has used a nickname or abbreviation to name Vedalken Shackles, but in case of unclear communication, the opponent should try to confirm what's going on. If he or she doesn't and then tries to act on what he or she believes it's going on, then the confusion is going to get cleared up and he or she might not like it. I'd rule that the player named Vedalken Shackles and as Joshua Feingold said, I would go like “…Really?” I think the opponent would have a hard time convincing me that he or she actually thought that the player was actually naming just plain Shackles.

So you would disagree with this thread form mtgsalvation?

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=407978

The tl:Dr version is that this happened and the final ruling is that Shackles is a legal name so Vedalken Shackles can be used.

Yes, I actually disagree with myself from that thread that was over a year ago. :P

I now prefer to let players make their own game decisions rather than making them for the player because of communication problems. It is only with a severely strict reading of the rules that you can get to the point of upholding “Shackles” as the named card just because the player stumbled upon it, and only if the players hadn't previously referenced Vedalken Shackles that way during the match, and if Vedalken Shackles wasn't on the battlefield and pointed at while naming it.

Tricking a player into thinking they named a card that is clear to both of you, when you know that you don't agree on the same card but intend to gain advantage from the ambiguity, isn't really something I want to test in a game of Magic.

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

So you would disagree with this thread form mtgsalvation?

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=407978

The tl:Dr version is that this happened and the final ruling is that Shackles is a legal name so Vedalken Shackles can be used.

The difference is that the mtgsalvation question is dealing with legacy where both cards are legal. In this thread it's modern where shackles is not legal in, and therefore not a legal card name for pithing needle.

To further reinforce the point, you might also want to ask if either player has referred to “Vedalken Shackles” as “shackles” at any point during the match.

Did Nate cast it and say, “Shackles?” Did he say, “Activate shackles.” Did Adam say, “What does shackles do?” This sets the precedent that the nickname is understood by both players.

Interesting to know that you changed your mind, would you now rule it as CPV?

The whole reason for this being modern is so that I can change the named card at a point where spells and abilities can't be activated to find out if a judge call at that point would allow an announced ability to continue to be paid for and put on the stack or if that gets nixed. I guess I'll ask if this had been posted a year ago, what would last year's model of Josh Stansfield have done with the activation?

haha

If I had determined that the named card wasn't ever clear and that it was supposed to be Vedalken Shackles all along, I would treat it like a GRV and undo the illegal activation. (Of course, 16-month younger Me might have upheld “Shackles” as the named card, meaning the activation was legal…)

In cases of communication problems, there doesn't necessarily have to be an infraction issued. I would explain to the player that it's not OK to try to take advantage of ambiguity this way, and just back up to the activation. CPV doesn't quite fit here, and the GRV is the result of a communications breakdown that isn't quite an infraction, so it doesn't necessarily need to be infracted.

David, I just can't fathom why you chose to dredge up an old MTGSalvation thread, nor why you brought it here. If you weren't happy with answers there, why defend them against contrary answers here? I'm sorry, sir, but I simply do not understand what you are hoping to accomplish?

Maybe he's just trying all the methods of social networking?