This was an interesting scenario from a FNM last summer that I meant to ask about, but had forgotten until now.

Albert is attacking with a Frostburn Weird on turn 3. Norbert is playing UW Control, and has two mana up, possibly representing Azorius Charm. Both players are very familiar with the rules and each others decklists. Albert is an incredibly brilliant game player, and a notorious angle shooter.

In all the previous times these two had been in this exact scenario, Norbert would quickly declare “no blocks”. There weren't any blocks possible, but that was Norbert's way of instructing Albert to decide how much mana he would pump into Weird before it was revealed whether it would be Charmed. On several previous occasions, Albert had pumped all the way before having his creature placed on top of his library. However, in the absence of Charm, attacking for four was much stronger than playing a second creature into Supreme Verdict.

On this occurrence, Albert attacked then immediately said “I'll pump it… <10 second pause to think, tapping and untapping various amounts of mana> … I'll pump it once.” then looked to Norbert for confirmation. Norbert agreed, and changed his life total to 18, which let Albert know that there was no Azorius Charm. Then Albert said “After no blockers are declared, I'll pump it twice more.”

Discussions after the match confirmed that Albert played like this (pumping once in Declare Attackers before ultimately pumping twice more in Declare Blockers) with the intention of tricking Norbert into thinking he was passing priority to Combat Damage without actually doing so. This included speaking during the time that Norbert would normally declare “no blocks” to interrupt that routine, then deliberately deliberating exactly as he would had “no blocks” already been specified - selling it to Norbert that there was no need for that clarification. By tapping various amounts of mana before settling on “I'll pump it once,” he let Norbert infer that had multiple pumps been incoming, they would have all been announced at the same time.

My question is whether it was savvy (albeit a bit scummy) gamesmanship for Albert to do what he did, or was there something wrong with it. Specifically, if you were judging this FNM, would you rule that Albert was passing priority to Declare Blockers, or to Combat Damage.

I was Norbert in this situation. My first reaction was to be annoyed with both myself and Albert - with him for tricking me, and with myself for getting tricked despite having the sense that something was fishy. Afterward, I realized just how impressive Albert's mindgames were to engineer that scenario. Getting priority last when attacking can provide a significant advantage in tournament Magic. It's easy to do it against imprecise players who are too eager to cast their spells or record damage, but he had to do a lot of work to get that edge against me.

My thought now is that Albert's play was fine. Despite him making every effort to be incorrectly interpreted as passing to Combat Damage, all of those efforts were through completely legal game actions, unambiguous communications and passive body language. While I'd be inclined to rule against him if he'd done something questionable that directly caused a misinterpretation, nothing stands out as such.

Edited Glenn Fisher (Feb. 13, 2015 07:14:56 PM)

This is Out of Order Sequencing, and I'm going to rewind the game.

Looking at MTR 4.3:

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence. Players may not try to use opponent's reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if he or she should modify actions or try to take additional ones. Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

Albert doesn't get to pump without Norbert getting a response. Active player /never/ will have priority last when attacking, since that just isn't how the game works.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Feb. 14, 2015 01:50:20 AM)

Originally posted by Jeff S Higgins:

Active player /never/ will have priority last when attacking, since that just isn't how the game works.

Well, unless the nonactive player decides to turn a face-down creature face up or ends up suspending something at instant speed then passes, but that's just a simple nitpick over the /never/. :)


In any case, taking this scenario exactly as you have described it (which includes no behavioral or other “you had to be there” cues), I personally would not consider pumping a creature to be a shortcut to any step or phase unless it has been taken as such before in the match. He did so immediately after attacking, but before blocks were declared. You cannot force your opponent to skip a step by immediately taking damage. Unfortunately, it was Norbert's actions that released the information prematurely.

I would rule that we were in Declare Blockers with active player having priority (no blockers declared), as Norbert has actively taken an action (proposed a shortcut) that showed that he wished to go to the Combat Damage step. Since he cannot force AP to miss priority, this is where we would be. Albert is allowed to pump more times, and Norbert may respond to any such pumps.

Remember that this only considers what you have told me, and will change depending on the specific situation.

Based on what you described in the game only(not his stated intentions afterwards), Albert isn't attempting to deceive you about what part of the turn you are in or the game state or trick you into thinking he is proposing a shortcut he is not proposing. He is playing smart Magic. He is giving you every opportunity to make a strategic mistake or reveal information to him that you do not yet have to reveal. It is Norbert that was proposing the shortcut to the combat damage step by making the life total change, not Albert. Albert passes priority, Norbert proposes a shortcut, which Albert accepts. Repeat. Repeat. Next time, he doesn't accept the shortcut. Boxers do this: Jab, Jab, Jab, Jab (you start to anticipate the jab) then hook. Poker players do this: fold, fold, fold, fold, (you start to assume the player will fold every bad hand) then bluff like crazy.
As for the intentions stated afterwards, I have some doubts that Albert actually acted “with the intention of tricking Norbert into thinking he was passing priority to combat damage without actually doing so” (a shortcut, not a mere single priority pass) even if he admits that is what he was doing, though it's certainly possible. But, rather, Albert is more likely acting in such a way to get Norbert to propose a shortcut, as Norbert had already done on previous turns. It's kind of like Albert saying to Norbert “I'm passing priority. You proposed a shortcut to damage before, are you going to want to propose a shortcut to damage again?” This is totally different from “I'm ready for damage. Are you?” As a player, when someone stops and seems to be waiting for you, you should ask “are you passing priority?/passing the turn?” not just the first time, but every time, this forces your opponent to be clear and also makes them conscious of how much time they are using if they happen to be thinking. It could be that he is considering an action, but your proposed shortcut made up his mind for him by revealing what actions you aren't going to take. In this case, Albert seemed to be waiting for you, and you proposed a shortcut instead of asking for clarification. I can't say if this is purposefully ambiguous or not, because I wasn't there, but silence and inaction should probably never be assumed to be a proposed shortcut so long as both players can speak a common language. I could see how this is slow play if he's taking no actions. Assuming that a player who is taking no actions, making no gestures, and saying nothing is actually proposing a shortcut with their silence is a baseless assumption, in my opinion. How can you trick someone into making a baseless assumption? You can certainly take advantage of a person's willingness to make baseless assumptions, though.