Adam and Nathan are playing in a PPTQ. The format is modern. Adam is playing a burn deck. Nathan is at 6 life, but has several creatures, among them a lifelink creature (Archangel of Thune). Nathan has no untapped mana sources. Adam has a Skullcrack and a Lava Spike in hand, but only 2 mana available. He goes into his turn and draws Lightning Bolt.

Adam reveals Lava Spike and Lightning Bolt. He actually just says “Lava Spike, Lightning Bolt?”. He does not announce any targets (there are, in theory, multiple possible targets for Lightning Bolt) and he doesn't tap any mana.

Nathan points at his Spellskite and says “redirect Lightning Bolt, I'm going to 1.”.

Adam says “Wait, I didn't actually cast them, I just showed them.”

They call a judge. What do you do? Where do we draw the line between “just showing cards” and “actually playing them”.

I'm going to want Adam to convince me he had a very good reason to just “show off” his cards in this manner. Players just don't do that, and - from this remote perspective - it sounds to me like Adam thought he'd just won, and was showing that to Nathan. When Nathan shows Adam the error in his assumption, Adam wants to change his story? Hmmmm…

d:^D

To me what happened most likely here is this:
Adam proposed a shortcut to Nathan. Nathan accepted that shortcut and will interrupt it with Spellskite before Lightning Bolt resolves.

Adam hasn't paid any costs… so how much clout do we as judges have to make him stick to his very-obviously-implied-but-technically-not-actually-executed line? I think AP is partly responsible for this mess by jumping the gun.

Edited Jochem van 't Hull (Aug. 13, 2016 02:54:59 PM)

What do we do when he reveals the Bolt first/he says he casts the bolt first? The shortcut got interrupted by the use of Spellskite.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Adam hasn't paid any costs… so how much clout do we as judges have to make him stick to his very-obviously-implied-but-technically-not-actually-executed line? I think AP is partly responsible for this mess by jumping the gun.

Here's some similar discussions =D
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13493/
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/4930/

Hm. Based on the second thread Toby linked above (which I was a part of but completely forgot existed) I believe this would be UC - Cheating. To quote from Uncle Scott's last post in that thread:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

While we can't force Alice to use mana abilities, we can record a GRV for starting to cast a spell and not being able to pay for it.

And if we believe that GRV is intentional, to gain advantage, and that Alice knew that was wrong? Well, now we have another conversation.

This situation seems textbook for this test. We can't force Adam to use his mana, but we can give him a GRV for attempting to cast his spells without paying mana (I believe the rationale for Adam casting his spell here, rather than just “showing cards” is pretty agreed upon and thus I'll skip over it). From there:

- Was it intentional? I believe so, due to Adam not only showing the cards, but also naming them.

- Was it to gain advantage? Most certainly, Adam thought he was about to win the game, and if Nathan scooped, he would have.

- Did he know it was wrong? This is a bit fuzzier and likely needs investigation, but like Uncle Scott above, I would need some pretty darned clear and irrefutable answer that he didn't before I believe it.

As for the secondary question, where is the line between “revealing cards” and “casting spells”, I think it depends on communication. For example:

Scenario 1) I show you Lava Spike and Lightning Bolt. I say “Lava Spike you, Lightning Bolt you, you're dead”, but I fail to tap my lands. That's “playing” but failure to pay costs; I have clearly identified the cards, I have clearly chosen targets, and since the game is about to be over, actually tapping lands is largely a formality since they're about to be scooped up anyway.

Scenario 2) I show you Lava Spike and Lightning Bolt. I say “I have these 2 cards and 2 untapped Mountains. Do you concede?”. That's “showing”; I have not made mention anywhere that I am casting the spell, nor have I chosen targets. I haven't even said anything intimating any sort of game result, like “you're dead” or “I win” etc. I simply asked if you would like to concede, out of the goodness of your heart, because I have these cards.

The exact line is somewhere in the middle between those, but that's where I stand on it, personally.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Aug. 15, 2016 04:54:59 PM)

What about this twist I've seen: Adam is at 4 Nathan is at 6. Adam has an eidolon out, and knows he's dead. Adam has double bolt in hand. Adam would like to bluff a concession out of Nathan. What's the best legal way Adam can do this?

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

Adam would like to bluff a concession out of Nathan. What's the best legal way Adam can do this?

That's not a question I'd ever answer from a player. JudgeApps isn't the place to find a roadmap to shenanigans.

When investigating this case, it's also worth trying to figure out how players have been playing up to this point.

If the active player has been going “bolt, you're at 13? tap my mountain, by the way,” all game, it seems extremely unlikely he was simply “showing” anything. However, if the active player has said “tap my mountain for lightning bolt, target you” every time he's cast one this match, then suddenly “Lava Spike, Lightning Bolt” is enough of a break from the norm that I might be convinced it wasn't cast yet. (emphasis on “might”)