Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Regarding investigating for Cheating, I would not do this. In short, I don't see any potential for abuse here. AP tried to run the old “takesies-backsies”, and had NAP not called a judge, NAP probably would have realized that “takesies-backsies” were in effect and would have done the same thing themselves. Of course, this is not strictly allowed at Competitive, but it is also not a situation that AP can really hope to use to gain advantage in any real, tangible way as far as I can tell. I don't think it's worth investigating for Cheating here.

Of course AP can use it to gain advantage. Just because one player allows a take-back (which they really shouldn't do at competitive) doesn't mean the other is held to the same standards. If I see players wantring to make a simple take-back (like “oh, you have 3 open, will you let me not Mana Leak after all ?”) I won't stop them but i warn the player agreeing to it that his opponent may very well refuse any take back in the future, and that take backs are in general discouraged. And any player trying to force a take-back looks highly suspicious to me.

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that “ it is also not a situation that AP can really hope to use to gain advantage in any real, tangible way”. Getting a Griselbrand on the battlefield when you wouldn't otherwise sounds like a very real, tangible advantage.

Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:

In our scenario, CR 101.4 and 608.2d are applied. Technically speaking, neither of these rules forbids a player to change his or her choice. Furthermore, technically speaking, a player did announce his choice at an inappropriate moment. So, did the player break any of these rules? Are there other rules that were broken?

I agree with this outlook: there is no GRV error commited and CPV only covers MTR4.1 (Player Communication) and not 4.2 (Tournament shortcuts).

What is the most useful outcome in this situation if the IPG doesn't support a formal penalty for this infraction? a caution by the judge (after a simple question to eliminate cheating) should suffice to highlight the fact Adam tried to do something illegal (changing his choice after Nadine made her's). To illustrate the point further, if Adam were allowed to change his mind to Grislebrand, what's to stop Nadine changing her choice ‘in response’?



TL; DR: A caution to Adam and make him adhere to his original choice. ‘No penalty’ may not neccesarily make Adam realise that he what he tried to do was wrong in the first place.

Hello all! I'm very glad to see that everyone remembers there are no takeseys-backseys at Competitive REL! We're all correct that Aaron is going to have to stick to his choice here. Now, on to the penalty.

Three options were discussed Game Rule Violation (i), Communication Policy Violation (ii) and No Penalty (iii).

Regarding i - Reading the IPG, we see that a GRV “…handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules…”. Tournament shortcuts are not part of the Comprehensive rules, they're part of the MTR. As such, deviations from the shortcut guidelines do not qualify as GRVs.

Regarding ii - We have 4 rules that players must follow when communicating. They must answer judge questions completely and honestly, they must not represent derived or free information incorrectly, they must answer questions honestly regarding free information, and at Regular we consider derived information to be free information. None of these rules were violated by either player.

Regarding iii - Since neither player has done anything that qualifies as an infraction, we're into the No Penalty Zone. We want to educate the players accordingly. Inform Aaron that he cannot change his mind at this point, and inform him that if he announces a choice before he is required to, that he will be obligated to stick to that choice unless his opponent takes an action before he would be required to make that choice.

So there we have it, no infraction has been committed so no penalty is issued, but Aaron doesn't get to change his mind. This is an opportunity for education, but not one we need to penalize.

Originally posted by Michael White:

…no infraction has been committed so no penalty is issued, but Aaron doesn't get to change his mind. This is an opportunity for education, but not one we need to penalize.

Very good to know! I kinda had the feeling this was the case, but to be honest I didn't know enough of the specifics as to why :)