Hello everyone!

Alex controls a Cunning Sparkmage and a Kiora's Follower. He has 3 Blessed Alliance in his hand but Niko dosen't know the identity of these cards.
Niko asks him: “How many damages can you deal me with the combined abilities of your two creatures?”
Alex answers: “8 damages in total”.

I believe that there's no infraction here because we're speaking about strategy and future actions, which are not accountable just via free/derived informations, but I'd like to have confirmations (or denials).
Note: I think this remains true even if Alex has 3 different cards in his hand (or if he has no cards at all).

Thanks for your answers! :D

Edited Jacopo Strati (Nov. 16, 2016 02:49:35 AM)

I think there is an infraction. When asked about derived information you can either not say anything(' Ill calculate later') or say the truth. But you cant lie. As the opponent cant know the identity of the cards in the player's hand saying that the 2 creatures can deal 8 damage is lying as in the current state of the game they cant deal 8.
As mtr 4.1 says “Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine.” And “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.”
The future aspect here is a really thin line, as the player doesnt add any future references.

Edited David Shor (Nov. 16, 2016 01:34:06 AM)

Derived Information is something that is fixed and can be worked out from what's visible. Power and Toughness is the typical example. Imagine Alex controls a Gideon Emblem and the follower has a +1/+1 counter on it. Nico asks its PT. Alex says 3/3. Given that all the information needed to work out PT is there, Nico can tell that this is incorrect. And it can be penalised.

Imagine for a moment the cards in hand are completely unknown. They could be anything. Then Niko asks the question. Alex answers. How is Niko supposed to know if the answer is correct? How do we know if an infraction has occurred? Or what if Alex says “2” - do we as a judge step in and say “no, sorry, you can do far more if you cast these Blessed Alliances”? Or do we say “no, you can't do 2 because you need to kill those thopter tokens or you die next turn”? This is why statements about future actions and plays are not considered Derived Information.

You quoted the MTR. You'll note the part about both players having access. Nico does not have access to Alex's hand

But to archive 8 damages, Alex uses private information (cards in hand) soo He can lie, bluff or tell nothing…
Maibe the problem is the clear or not question: Ask for derivate info or hidden info?? Try to know if Alex have something to untap or simply to sum 1+1..?
(1+1 rly need to be asked?)

To me it seeems Niko asked about only the two creatures, and specifically excluded cards in hand that way.

The core question is probably whether the communication here happens about a future game state or not. Since it requires a series of actions and abilities, I like to think it's about future game state. Therefore, lying would be allowed. In all these cases, what cards are actually in Alex's hand is irrelevant to me.

I will not penalize the answer “I can deal 8 damage” here, as to me, no infraction occured.

This feels bad or very borderline, but I always try to take things abstract so the rules can apply easier.
If a player who has a Blinkmoth Nexus, some artifacts and Arcbound Ravager is asked “How big can you make it?”, he also doesn't have to answer truthfully. Animating Nexus is an action, similar to tapping Kiora's Follower. Actions happen (or don't happen at all because the player decides so) in the future.

After reading the answers written here I agree that saying that the 2 creatures CAN deal 8 damage is talking about a future game state, HOWEVER it feels really sketchy to me, and borderline on lying, anything different in this situation and I would've called a penalty.

Edited David Shor (Nov. 16, 2016 12:26:35 PM)

The thing is this: You're allowed to lie about private information and/or future gamestates.

The “esence of the question” is the point i think…

-Niko can ask about how many damage can do because he can´t do it (1+1… easy sum)but can…
-Niko can ask about how many MAX damage can do, but this way we jump from derivate to private information…
-Niko can ask about how many damage can do because maibe He thinks that is missing some hability of efect… maibe there are more creatures in battlefield or summon sick and Niko want be sure about this…

-Alex can think than Niko was asking about any of the previous posibilities ^____^


If here we have any infraction, I focus on comunication failure.

I don't believe this is any infraction. Contents of the hand are Private Information, which means the player is allowed to claim all cards in hand are Mountain, Tundra (in a standard tournament), add up to 38 damage, or anything else they would like to claim.

The MTR 4.1 says

The following rules govern player communication:
• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the
type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.

Nothing there gives rules about Private Information.

Lying about the cards in hand or how those cards could impact the game can't be a Communication Policy Violation, because the IPG definition of CPV is

A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.

I do believe that you are overthinking this situation.
As Brook pointed out, if this question actually refers to any type of MTR-defined type of information at all, it refers to private information. And people can bluff all they want about it. There is no infraction.

“Will you kill me next turn?” - “Sure!”
I have hard time imagining judges giving out CPV if the player actually fails to keep the promise.

-LK

I agree that the Private information should not be considered in the
situation.
However, even with just the two cards in play, the player isn't required to
say how much damage he *could* do. He has one creature that has an
activated ability that can deal 1 damage to a player (or creature). That's
the only information that he needs to be truthful about. He doesn't need
to explain that another creature could untap the first one (after it was
tapped to deal a damage), so that he could do another damage. That's
strategic and regarding possible future decisions. He just has to be
truthful that the first creature is capable to dealing 1 damage to the
opponent.