Originally posted by Jose Miguel Sanchez Navarro:

Really it's your fault show your hand, but if the other player takes notes before notice its a joke then he falls in DQ - Cheating. He's taking advantage permitting an irregular situacion and he knows its

Where in the documents does it say a line between writing things down and not is grounds for cheating?
What do the documents say about writing notes?

I think seeing the cards is the damaging part of this exchange, writing them down is just a symptom of seeing them.

So on what ground would you investigate or even give some kind of penaltie?

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

So on what ground would you investigate or even give some kind of penaltie?

In this situation, you “investigate” because two players are confused about what is going on. Especially because one player made a set of statements that resulted in a rather “odd” situation that isn't entirely legally. To further support it, there might be a bit of advantage gained for the one player as a result of the other player not understanding entirely went on.

How far or what kind of questions you ask during the “investigation” is going to be a result of whatever answers you get, and whether you judge that those answers make sense given the circumstances. If something the player says doesn't seem probable or reasonable, you may have to ask more questions. If it makes sense in context (i.e., the “local joke” expectation) then it may be that you don't ask a lot of questions.

What infraction you assess or determine happened will be based on the answers you get from those questions, your assessment of the events, and evaluation of whether it violated a rule or policy. As some suggest, this could simply be a poorly proposed shortcut. As others suggest, this could be an actual violation of a rule or policy. YMMV given the circumstances. But it is best to approach the situation from a standpoint of “I don't know what happened, let me find out.” rather than having any preconceived notions about what to expect.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Especially because one player made a set of statements that resulted in a rather “odd” situation that isn't entirely legally.

Why isnt it legal?

What rule was broken?

I think Brians point was, that an “investigation” starts as soon as you get to the table and ask the players what happened. Whether that investigation results in a DQ or something else (or no infraction / no penalty) doesn't change the fact that you started an investigation.

When the players tell you that someone said something about a Thoughtseize without having one, you need to start asking more questions. The point is, you don't start an investigation when a rule was broken. You start an investigation to find out if a rule was broken, and which one.

The point is, is it allowed to say “I play Thoughtseize, show me your hand!” when its a lie? I think no, the same way is not allowed to to say that a 3/3 creature is a 4/4 if it is not true.

It is clear that if the player is aware that he or she is doing something illegal it is cheating. But if he or she is joking?

I think that the example before can help us… What happens in PT final if a player with a 3/3 creature says joking “It does not die because it is too strong!” after the opponent resolves a lightning bolt on it, then this joke induce that the opponent show very fast an another Lightning bolt to kill the same creature?

I think that kind of jokes should be allowed but all players should be carefully with that jokes and avoid the risk to be interpreted as Cheating.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

Brian Schenck
Especially because one player made a set of statements that resulted in a rather “odd” situation that isn't entirely legally.

Why isnt it legal?

What rule was broken?

IMO, I'm not certain that focusing on a single sentence from my larger post is really the ideal approach to the discussion. While this is in part this is a discussion on the interplay between CR 601.2a, MTR 3.12, MTR 4.1, and MTR 4.2, it is also about treating this situation with some openness to any kind of investigation at all. While we might ultimately use our understanding or those rules/policies to determine whether the player's “Fetch, Shock, Thoughtseize…” statement was legal or not, the situation is pretty odd.

When I say that I don't believe that the player's statements are “entirely legal”, that's because I am open to the possibility that the player's statement could be a potential shortcut that was proposed by the player. Or something that was interpreted as a proposed shortcut by the opponent who then revealed his hand. (Despite this being a Competitive REL, players do agree to certain social conventions while playing Magic and generally do try to be cooperative when playing this game.) This proposed shortcut should ultimately be a legal series of actions with the end result of a game state where there is a Thoughtseize on the stack. That follows from MTR 4.2 and CR 601.2a if we want to approach the situation that way.

Alternatively, we could approach this as there being a bluff involved about proposing a “future game state” that is somehow legal under MTR 4.1. Perhaps this situation is generally covered under that umbrella of policy, though I personally have a bit of doubt in this situation. But, nevertheless, I am willing to entertain that this is potentially legal.

Obviously the opponent showing his hand is legal per MTR 3.12, but how we got here is what we need understand. That was my point with that sentence, in context with the rest of my post, suggesting that this is only in part a “Legal/Not legal” evaluation. Rather, we need to have the “Legal/Not legal” evaluation after we've gotten a very good read on the situation and been careful to ask some questions so we do understand what happened.

Tobias Rolle
I think Brians point was, that an “investigation” starts as soon as you get to the table and ask the players what happened. Whether that investigation results in a DQ or something else (or no infraction / no penalty) doesn't change the fact that you started an investigation.

When the players tell you that someone said something about a Thoughtseize without having one, you need to start asking more questions. The point is, you don't start an investigation when a rule was broken. You start an investigation to find out if a rule was broken, and which one.

Precisely. I often see that judges treat “investigation” as something that happens after a judge detects a rule/policy violation. When really, it does start as soon as you get to the table and ask “So, what happened?” Because I feel that it would be far too easy to claim “It was a joke!” when the truth of the matter is the player was trying to gaining an illegal advantage through some questionable communication. (Again, we may have a convention about players playing the game, but people can attempt to take advantage of that convention.) Or perhaps even intended this as an actual shortcut, only realizing after the fact that he/she didn't have the Thoughtseize in hand. The “It was a joke!” could really just be the player attempting to defuse the situation.

Originally posted by David Pla:

The point is, is it allowed to say “I play Thoughtseize, show me your hand!” when its a lie? I think no, the same way is not allowed to to say that a 3/3 creature is a 4/4 if it is not true.

There's still a difference between “I'll play a Thoughtseize later in the game” (ie. after fetching and shuffling) and “I have priority, the stack is empty, and I announce Thoughtseize now”. I'm not saying it's 100% allowed or encouraged to behave that way, in my opionion there's a line somewhere - I can't say exactly where that line is, but “I play Thoughtseize now” is clearly on one side of the line, “I'll play Thoughtseize later” might be on the other side. Might also not be.

Whereas your example with the 3/3 creature is a very clear violation of the CPV, there's no arguing about it. Misrepresenting derived information can never be legal.

I think that the example before can help us… What happens in PT final if a player with a 3/3 creature says joking “It does not die because it is too strong!” after the opponent resolves a lightning bolt on it, then this joke induce that the opponent show very fast an another Lightning bolt to kill the same creature?

If I'm convinced it was really just a joke, that's a CPV-Warning for the player, and since the opponent cast the second lightning bolt based on the incorrectly communicated information, I'd back up to the point just after the first lightning bolt resolved. I don't think there's a problem here.

Ah thanks. Well i think i got clearer on what to do when the situation arrives (which is evaluating the situation even more :p )

Thanks alot for all the Input. Helps me out alot!