Judge Poll

Some background for those unfamiliar but might find this interesting anyway: The basic timing system in Magic is that when a player has “priority”, they can choose to (a) take an action, or (b) pass. If both players pass in a row, then (a) if there’s something on the stack (waiting to resolve), the top item on the stack resolves and active player get priority again, or (b) if there’s nothing on the stack, the current phase or step ends and the game moves on to the next phase. Usually, this formal description of timing is shortcutted quickly by the players, and most actual players wouldn’t be able to describe the details of how this timing system works.

The definition of “Cheating — Fraud” in the DCI Penalty Guidelines is “A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, game state or any other relevant tournament information in an attempt to gain advantage.” Examples of this include intentionally lying, such as lying to a judge about what happened in a game, or lying to an opponent about one’s life total. (Bluffing about hidden information, like “You know I just have a Counterspell ready in my hand if you play that,” is fine; lying about public information, like “Sure, I take 5 damage,” when you know that you’re supposed to be taking 6 damage, is cheating.)

The poll question being asked in the DCI Judge Center:

Adam is in his Second main phase, has priority, nothing is waiting to resolve, but has taken no actions for 15 seconds while reviewing the board. Billy asks: “Can I play a Lightning Bolt now?”. Adam says “Sure”. Billy says: “Good. You passed priority. I choose not to play a Bolt. This phase is now over. Do you want to play anything during End of Turn?”. The judge should…
(a) …back up the game only at Regular REL (local store events like Friday Night Magic).
(b) …back up the game at any REL (including more competitive events like Pro Tour Qualifiers and Grand Prix events).
(c) …do nothing, this is legal.
(d) …disqualify Billy for fraud.
(e) …award an Unsporting Conduct warning to Billy and back up the game.

I was just curious if anybody here had any thoughts.

23 thoughts on “Judge Poll

  1. I think if he had used the word “may” and not “can” then it would be a problem. As it is he wasn’t asking permission to play a lightning bolt, he was asking if it was possible.

  2. Playing silly games with symantics is going to degrade quickly (“He didn’t say could he play a Lightning Bolt in this game!”), so I would think it was at the least a manipulative act on Billy’s part, and Billy deliberately misrepresented his intention to place an action on the stack, which is certainly relevant information that he has created as of the moment he spoke out (assuming we consider play speech as game important — if we don’t, Adam’s “Sure” in nonbinding). That said, intentions are private information (although announced intentions with no mitigating action before execution, you can argue are game state information).

    I would probably think of this as a (a) or (b) for first offense, and (e) for subsequent offenses.

  3. I agree with John. It’s fundamentally the same as saying, “If you attack me, I’ll only block with X,” and then blocking with X&Y.; You’re essentially lying to someone to get them to do something. Semantics are pointless — Billy knew how Adam would interpret his request, and that’s what matters.

    We can have a semantic debate about the meaning of the sentence, but then we’d have to have a semantic debate about what it means to lie.

  4. So you and say that if somebody lies about what they’re intending to do soon, that any responses to that aren’t binding if the original action doesn’t happen, and you back up the game to before that point?

    That seems a bit odd to me, since it sounds like you’re saying that he’s either lying about hidden information (okay) or lying about public gamestate information (fraud), and then you’re saying that you’d go with backing up the game.

    Somewhat related, if I say “I’ll concede if you show me a Counterspell in your hand”, and then you proceed to in fact show me the Counterspell, am I then obligated to concede as promised?

  5. It’s fundamentally the same as saying, “If you attack me, I’ll only block with X,” and then blocking with X&Y.;

    Why wouldn’t this fall under the bluff exception?

  6. There’s a bigger question, but before I answer…

    Lying about hidden information is legal?

  7. “Bluffing about hidden information, like ‘You know I just have a Counterspell ready in my hand if you play that,’ is fine” — Start of the parenthetical comment in my second paragraph.

  8. Pete can set the record straight, but I’m pretty sure “hidden information” only applies to hidden information about the current game state. A future player action is not part of the game state.

    If boldly, unambiguously lying about a future game action to get your opponent to change his behavior is legal, then I have no argument. That seems a bit unsporting to /me/ though.

  9. Somewhat related, if I say “I’ll concede if you show me a Counterspell in your hand”, and then you proceed to in fact show me the Counterspell, am I then obligated to concede as promised?

    I would say no. The hidden information being lied about in this case isn’t the existence of the card in the player’s hand, it’s the player’s intention to play the card.

    A better way to handle it would be “If you’re going to play it, play it now. Otherwise please let me think about the remainder of my main phase.”

  10. I’ve pointed out how I don’t think this is bluffing in my reply to Tom. As for your latter related question, I don’t think saying you’ll conceed and then not doing so is bluffing under the stated rules. As such, it’s lying about information relevant to the tournament.

  11. I’m pretty sure “hidden information” only applies to hidden information about the current game state.

    How does the example permissible bluff “You know I have a Counterspell ready in my hand if you play that” when you are either unable or unwilling to play a counterspell not falsely represent an intended future player action?

  12. “You know I have a Counterspell ready in my hand if you play that”
    “I will play a counterspell if you play that”

    The distinction is obvious, no?

  13. I think it’s hairsplitting on the first comment’s level. Why announce you have a counterspell at all if you don’t want the opponent to believe that you’re going to use it?

  14. I think there’s an obvious difference between suggesting the existence of a threat and making a commitment.

  15. I don’t think for me the operative issue here is whether he lied or not. For me, the issue of concern is this: do the rules allow a player to engage in distraction tactics?

    My thoughts are thus. By stating that he would like to cast lighting bolt, Billy is essentially saying “hurry up. I want your turn to end” without referencing the end of the turn directly. It’s not that he’s lying, it’s more that he’s sleight-of-handing the nature of the turn order and his request. If Adam is concerned about his turn ending, he can say ‘hold on a minute, I’m not sure I’m ready yet’. It’s his responsibility to know how turn order works if he’s playing the game. Ignorantia legis non excusat.

    However there does seem to be something unsportmanlike not so much about deceiving, but in hurrying the opponent into ending his turn prematurely. Do the rules address this?

  16. Sorry if I sound belligerent. :( I get kind of dickish when I’m in a hurry.

  17. I’m not sure, but I think you’re missing part of the point. Adam might want to do something on his second main phase. If Billy casts a lightning bolt, Adam can still do something. Billy didn’t cast a lightning bolt, so Adam can’t do anything. Adam essentially agreed to continue to have the opportunity to do something, and was denied that.

    This is particularly egregious for an FNM player who doesn’t understand priority. Adam might not know he agreed to pass priority, potentially ending the game. The nature of the question suggests that Billy knows this, suggesting that Billy willfully mislead Adam.

  18. Right… part of the question here is dealing with players who don’t completely understand the timing rules. To put a rule to ‘s “Ignorantia legis non excusat.”, I present the following excerpt from the DCI Universal Tournament Rules.

    11. Event-Knowledge Responsibilities
    Competitors, Judges, and organizers involved in DCI-sanctioned tournaments are responsible for knowing and following the most current version of the Universal Tournament Rules, the DCI Floor Rules for the appropriate game, and any other applicable regulatory documents, including the game rules for the appropriate game.

    And so really the question is partly whether somebody can pass through their main phase without knowing that that’s what they’re doing.

  19. Yes in the abstract, but I think you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective.

    What matters isn’t really what the speaker intended to convey. What really should matter if this rule is intended to prevent fraud, is the effect it has on the opponent. If either statement made the opponent believe the counterspell would be used immediately, and it reasonable to think that under the circumstances, I’m not sure the differences in wording make any difference.

  20. Does my ignorance about the rules excuse my not knowing about the irrelevance of the ignorance of the rules? Anyways, all else conceded, I see one remaining question.

    1) Does lying about a future action fall under the bluffing clause?

    From my reading, it doesn’t. The rules seem to be about hidden game state information. Do you agree?

    “I have a counterspell.” “My morph is just a Zombie Cutthroat.”
    Fine.
    “I’m not going to attack this turn.”
    From my reading against the rules if it’s a lie.
    “I won’t ping you if you attack Steve instead.”
    From my reading against the rules if it’s a lie and particularly unsporting.

    But you know, it’s just an interpretation. When I cling to an interpretation, it’s a sure sign my blood sugar is falling through the floor. I just happen to like my interpretation because it rules out behavior I find unpleasing.

  21. Bluffing has a fine tradition in cards. It usually refers to misrepresenting what cards you have in your hand. What we’re talking about is more like promising to fold or to only draw 1 card — you never see that in poker; it’d be asinine and possibly illegal.

    I’d say if something can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on what someone has in their hand, regardless of intent, it’s acceptable. I really don’t think I’m picking nits here.

  22. Being overly legalistic with the timing rules would slow things down a lot. The rules are there to resolve ambiguous situations. So I’d say back up the game and give him a warning.

Comments are closed.