Hi everyone, an issue that occurred at our FNM to a judge i'm working with and i would love to get your input on: 

Player A has 2 creatures on board and player B has no creatures. Player A is transmuting Tolaria West and instead of getting Summoner's pact they get a creature and play it (with enough mana to cast it). Player B notices this and calls a judge. In the meantime a bystander tells player A that he cannot pay for the pact on the next turn, and a heated debate rises. 
judge comes and decides to perform a backup to the point of error and returns to the point of transmute resolving. Player B claims that relevant information was gained when he did not respond to transmute/casting of creature since during the debate he revealed his hand. After backing up player A searches summoner's pact and does not cast it

There's a condraction here between relevant information gained (from bystander and from hand revealed) vs the 'relative simplicity' of the back up. I believe a back up here is wrong since the play pattern did change but do not feel comfortable with the game rule violation being allowed.

Would love to hear your opinion on the subject

Yoni

This is a fun scenario, thanks for bringing it up!

I'm assuming that this is Modern's Amulet Titan deck. It's pretty common to have someone get both Pact + Titan at the same time.

tl;dr - I wouldn't back up because I don't believe we need to.

I'm renaming them to Ajani (Player A - Active Player) and Nissa (Player B - Non Active Player).

My first question is to confirm to Ajani that he meant to grab Summoner's Pact and play it. With the spectator's info, there's now a possibility that Ajani might lie.
If he says no, it's worth checking to see his history with the deck in the event/previous events. If Ajani normally plays Amulet Titan or has used the same line in this event, I now have more questions on why he may have lied to me.

Assuming we have a missing piece in the shortcut, is this the first time that Ajani used Tolaria West -> Summoner's Pact -> Creature this match?
If not, did Ajani say anything to indicate that it was a shortcut, like "get Pact and get Creature?"

There's some filler questions that I'd use in talking through my ruling at the end, such as how familiar Nissa is with the deck's loop, but those are the main two.

 

As far as how to fix this, it looks like Ajani's proposing a shortcut (MTR 4.2) and didn't physically get the Pact as part of it. I'd want to see if Nissa was going to counter the Pact. In either case, Pact is going to the graveyard.

If not, the creature that Ajani played is now on the stack. Remind Ajani that he needs to be more clear in the future about his shortcuts.
If Nissa does want to counter the Pact, then we back up the playing of the creature from the library (untap the lands, put it back in the deck). She has successfully interrupted the shortcut.

As far as information gained, there's a few things we need to address:
- The spectator provided outside assistance. That's bad. Remind the spectator that they should not be doing that. They meaningfully changed the game's play. If it's Titan, they'll now fetch green mana instead of possibly losing. Or just not play the Pact, like what happened.
- Responding to the shortcut - if Ajani's searching, then it sounds like it's too late to respond to that. If she wants to counter the Pact, remind her that she actually gets more information with the shortcut.
- The revealed hand. It sounds like Nissa revealed her hand outside of anything making her. My biggest concern with factoring that in is that I don't want to create scenarios where the person not causing a backup can prevent a backup from happening.

Her hand might make a difference on what creature Ajani fetches, but that's why I would look at fixing the shortcut instead of trying to back up. The actual result is why backing up through information gained is messy. 

At the risk of being too verbose, but hopefully to clear up the philosophy/reasoning behind the way that a situation like this is handled, so that you can apply the same logic to other scenarios in the future, I'll be referencing the JAR (Juding at Regular) and MTR (Magic Tournament Rules) documents several times below. That said, the JAR alone is usually sufficient and should be your go-to resource for Regular REL events, and the MTR is often not strictly employed/enforced at Regular REL events.

The JAR (PDF) has this to say:

A player makes an in-game error not mentioned above

[...] if the error was caught quickly and backing up is relatively easy, you may undo all the actions back to the point that the illegal action happened. [...] This can be very disruptive where lots of decisions have been made or hidden information has been revealed since the illegal action, so don't go crazy with this!

In your scenario, the illegal action is fetching an illegal card from the library. After that card was fetched, the only in-game action was B implicitly passing priority and A casting the fetched creature, so I would not say that significant information has been revealed. As such, backup to the point where the transmute ability starts resolving, because the illegal action happened during the resolution of that ability.

Player B claims that relevant information was gained when he did not respond to transmute/casting of creature ...

We're only backing up to the point where the transmute ability begins resolving, not to the prior and final point where B would have had priority before it resolves, so B not responding to the transmute ability is irrelevant; that priority point has already passed and isn't being undone. B presumably did not get a chance to express a desire to respond to the creature being cast or to let it resolve before the error was spotted, so I disagree that relevant information was gained there either.

... since during the debate he revealed his hand.

The fact that B revealed their hand is immaterial if they did this of their own volition rather than due to some in-game effect, such as that of Duress. At Competitive REL, revealing one's own cards to an opponent is not considered an infraction. Likewise, it's definitely not something that warrants a warning at Regular REL either. The MTR (PDF) also clarifies this (emphasis mine):

3.13 Hidden Information

Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look.

Throughout the match, a draft, and pregame procedures, players are responsible for keeping their cards above the level of the playing surface and for making reasonable efforts to prevent hidden information from being revealed. However, players may choose to share the contents of their hands, or any other hidden information available to them, to any other players unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them but are not required to inform opponents who are accidentally revealing hidden information.

***

In the meantime a bystander tells player A that he cannot pay for the pact on the next turn

The JAR says that "Asking for or providing strategic advice during a match or draft" is a "General Unwanted Behavior", but I personally wouldn't consider this strategic advice. Rather, I consider it a reminder to the player of what a card does before they use it. That said, exercise your discretion: is the external person merely trying to assist A in learning the game, the behaviour of cards, the deck they're piloting, etc.; or are they intentionally trying to help them win the game? Based only on the info you've provided, I would lean heavily towards the former.

In general, at Regular REL, I consider remarks like "remember that permanent X has ability Y" or "if you do X, then you must do Y next turn" to just be reminders about how the game works, not strategic guidance. That said, tailoring how you handle this depending on the players involved and the nature of the event is normal and expected, and the JAR says as much:

Magic is a complicated game. [...] Our solutions should focus on educating the players and keeping the game going rather than worrying about the impact on the game. You should intervene if you see something illegal happen in a match, but beyond this you can exercise your discretion. For example, whether you step in when you see a player miss a trigger should be determined by the tone you want to strike for your event – it may be appropriate to provide this extra help in a more causal environment, but less so if your play group is more competitive.

I am much more likely to be lenient with newer players and stricter with more experienced players. For example, even at a prerelease event, which is generally an extremely casual and non-competitive environment, if two experienced players are playing against each other, there is often a mutual understanding between them and any spectators that the match is to be played without any remarks/reminders about the functions of cards etc.; though after a game or the match, they are likely to discuss strategy in retrospect, such as how the game played out and options that were ignored/unrealised by one person that could've significantly changed the course of a game.

To be clear: if a person intentionally solicits or gives strategic advice (which I consider to be remarks such as "decision X is better than decision Y", or maybe even "have you considered option X?" depending on the players involved), then that is a Serious Problem and warrants disqualifying the player making those remarks. From the JAR:

Intentionally taking any of these actions [committing a General Unwanted Behavior] when the player knows it is against the rules, or trying to trick their opponent into doing so, is a Serious Problem.

Serious Problems

Certain actions will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Every effort should be made to educate players
before and during events but any player engaging in the following must be removed from your event [...]:

• Knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules, or lying, in order to
  gain an advantage.

Not receiving outside assistance is indeed a tournament rule, per the MTR:

5.6 Outside Assistance

During matches, players may not seek play advice from spectators and spectators may not give play advice to players.

If the person making illegal remarks is not a player in your event, you of course cannot disqualify them, but you should do your best to ensure that they are not able to provide assistance again, such as by asking the TO to remove them from the play area.

***

 After backing up player A searches summoner's pact and does not cast it

I think this is a perfectly fine way to resolve the illegal action; this backup is what I would have done, and this is what I would've expected A to do.

***

I would like to add that I don't think what I'm saying here is incompatible with Jason's advice to ask A whether they actually intended to fetch Pact and then use it to get the creature. However, they would need to fetch both Pact and the creature from the library in order to do this, because Pact needs to go to the graveyard eventually. It's possible that they simply forgot to get both cards out of the library or failed to clearly communicate to B that they were fetching two cards and happened to reveal the creature first, at which time the error was pointed out. As such, you should aim to find out whether this was indeed A's intent or not. If A says they didn't intend to fetch Pact, then I would backup to the resolution of transmute, absent any evidence* that A is actually covertly changing their mind and regardless of the fact that a remark was made by another person about not being able to pay for Pact on the next turn. If A says they did intend to fetch Pact, then I think Jason's interpretation that this is A expressing a shortcut is suitable, and we just need to ensure that Pact is fetched from the library so that the shortcut is valid, and that B gets a chance to interrupt the shortcut if they wish.

* Where Jason and I probably differ is in the amount of effort we'd spend trying to get such evidence. At a Regular REL event that has a casual atmosphere, I would not spend much time on this and would err on the side of assuming that A is telling the truth. If the atmosphere is more competitive and/or the players are more experienced, I think this warrants more investigation.

Best of luck in your judging, and happy new year!

Originally posted by Jivan Pal:

At the risk of being too verbose, but hopefully to clear up the philosophy/reasoning behind the way that a situation like this is handled, so that you can apply the same logic to other scenarios in the future, I'll be referencing the JAR (Juding at Regular) and MTR (Magic Tournament Rules) documents several times below. That said, the JAR alone is usually sufficient and should be your go-to resource for Regular REL events, and the MTR is often not strictly employed/enforced at Regular REL events.

The MTR is used at every event. It has all of the tournament fundamentals, such as sleeves, set legality, recommended round time, and tapped cards.

More importantly to this conversation, it also has section 4 - Communication, which applies at every REL.
Shortcuts are incredibly important for live play being fun. They provide a written framework for players to do what they naturally want to do (spend time on things that matter).

The JAR says that "Asking for or providing strategic advice during a match or draft" is a "General Unwanted Behavior", but I personally wouldn't consider this strategic advice. Rather, I consider it a reminder to the player of what a card does before they use it. That said, exercise your discretion: is the external person merely trying to assist A in learning the game, the behaviour of cards, the deck they're piloting, etc.; or are they intentionally trying to help them win the game? Based only on the info you've provided, I would lean heavily towards the former.

I disagree on this not being strategic advice.

My most succinct argument is the player's actions after the backup:
If it's not strategic advice, why does the play change after getting it?

5.6 Outside Assistance

During matches, players may not seek play advice from spectators and spectators may not give play advice to players.

This is broad for a reason. Saying "Lightning Bolt targets players" has a different meaning when a player is playing draw-go with Lightning Bolt in their hand when their opponent is at 3 life vs after they turn 1 Bolt Bird.

If the person making illegal remarks is not a player in your event, you of course cannot disqualify them, but you should do your best to ensure that they are not able to provide assistance again, such as by asking the TO to remove them from the play area.

I suspect they'll get the hint after you tell them that what they did was wrong and why. But if they don't seem to realize or care after you address it, absolutely talk to the TO and remove them from the play area.
FWIW, I'd recommend talking to the TO about any outside assistance.

***

 After backing up player A searches summoner's pact and does not cast it

I think this is a perfectly fine way to resolve the illegal action; this backup is what I would have done, and this is what I would've expected A to do.

I wish the JAR had more space to go into philosophy, but a 2 page document that people will read and use is better than a 20 page document that no one will.

The IPG's section on backups is spot-on with why I think backing up is not correct (assuming it's the shortcut with Pact not getting pulled):

MTR 1.4 - Backing Up

A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).

 

I would like to add that I don't think what I'm saying here is incompatible with Jason's advice to ask A whether they actually intended to fetch Pact and then use it to get the creature. However, they would need to fetch both Pact and the creature from the library in order to do this, because Pact needs to go to the graveyard eventually. It's possible that they simply forgot to get both cards out of the library or failed to clearly communicate to B that they were fetching two cards and happened to reveal the creature first, at which time the error was pointed out. As such, you should aim to find out whether this was indeed A's intent or not. If A says they didn't intend to fetch Pact, then I would backup to the resolution of transmute, absent any evidence* that A is actually covertly changing their mind and regardless of the fact that a remark was made by another person about not being able to pay for Pact on the next turn. If A says they did intend to fetch Pact, then I think Jason's interpretation that this is A expressing a shortcut is suitable, and we just need to ensure that Pact is fetched from the library so that the shortcut is valid, and that B gets a chance to interrupt the shortcut if they wish.

If they say "I thought Transmute could get any card", then I have more questions. Especially because the spectator thinks Ajani got the Pact.

*Where Jason and I probably differ is in the amount of effort we'd spend trying to get such evidence. At a Regular REL event that has a casual atmosphere, I would not spend much time on this and would err on the side of assuming that A is telling the truth. If the atmosphere is more competitive and/or the players are more experienced, I think this warrants more investigation.

The amount of effort that I'd go to is the initial "what happened?" part of the investigation. It should be under 2 minutes.

Here's the core of how I mostly expect this to happen:

Judge: "Hey, how can I help?"
Nissa: "Ajani fetched a creature with Tolaria West."
Judge: "Is there a Summoner's Pact involved, Ajani?"
Ajani: "Yeah, I went to get Summoner's Pact into a creature, but I found the creature before I found the Pact."
Judge: "Okay. Did you say anything when you did that?"
Ajani: "I thought I did, but it's noisy"
Judge: "Okay, have you done that play in this match before?"
Ajani: "I got blown out in game 1 and didn't see Summoner's Pact."
Judge: "Sounds like we have a proposed shortcut. Nissa, he tutored for Summoner's Pact, cast it as part of the same search, and wasn't as clear as he should have been. All of the steps are legal, so it's okay to save on a second shuffle. Do you want to counter the Pact?"
Nissa: "No."
Judge: "Great, Ajani, can you put the Summoner's Pact that you pulled for it into the graveyard, then shuffle? The creature is currently on the stack. I need to follow up with the spectator about not giving play advice. Any questions before we get you playing again?"