Hey everyone,

With the Team Sealed GP in Sydney this weekend I was looking at the MTR and found the part that says if a member of a team drops, and there is insufficient players to continue, then the team is dropped. I was wondering what definition the word “sufficient” had.

I feel that 2 out of 3 players would be sufficient as only a majority would be required to win a round, but I've heard that in the past, one person drops, the team drops.

That's correct: you need 3 players for a Team. In the old days, the WMC used a team of 4 players, so they would select 3 of them to play the Team Sealed portion; even if 1 of those 4 players dropped, they would still have 3 players to actually play the Sealed.


TL;DR: sufficient = 3.

________________________________
From: Sean Crain <forum-36345-0208@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:58:38 PM
To: dustindeleeuw@hotmail.com
Subject: Team Sealed - Sufficient Number of Players (Competitive REL)


Hey everyone,

With the Team Sealed GP in Sydney this weekend I was looking at the MTR and found the part that says if a member of a team drops, and there is insufficient players to continue, then the team is dropped. I was wondering what definition the word “sufficient” had.

I feel that 2 out of 3 players would be sufficient as only a majority would be required to win a round, but I've heard that in the past, one person drops, the team drops.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/226048/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/36345/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/36345/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Does anyone know why it is this way? Seems like a terrible way to be forced
to drop if your teammate has to drop, when you could still have a chance to
win with 2 players.

2017-06-21 10:57 GMT-04:00 Dustin De Leeuw <

A drop in a team will force to every oponent team to feel the unfun because the problems of the oponents… Allways we will have a poor player from an inocent team with a bye by another team's problems…

That's not fair… innocent pay for the guilty isn't the essence of the game, soo if a team lost 1 player, all the team must be drop.

I'm not convinced. For one, “Innocent pay for the guilty” describes the two
remaining players paying for the one who dropped. For two, I'm sure the
“poor” player is not complaining about a free win.

2017-06-22 20:28 GMT-04:00 Iván R. Molia <

This is one of the few issues I wrote about here in my quick write-up from the few team sealed events i worked

There is no room for an individual to mark as dropped on the match slip. I have seen several teams who had a teammate who “went to the bathroom and now isn't answering calls” for multiple rounds at the end of the day. I am unsure how to address this or how harshly we should be enforcing the idea that all 3 teammates be present for a match to be legal. Because it is entirely legal for one team member to be absent from a round to run an errand, for example: to go get lunch for the team. IIRC one of the top4 teams from GP San Antonio did this.

The area between that and leaving the venue 2-3 hours early to go home is grey at best, and I'd like it to be better defined.

Edited Russell Deutsch (June 23, 2017 11:31:58 AM)

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

I'm not convinced. For one, “Innocent pay for the guilty” describes the two
remaining players paying for the one who dropped. For two, I'm sure the
“poor” player is not complaining about a free win.

Let me posit a couple scenarios for you:

At a Team Sealed Grand Prix, Player A tells Players B and C that they should build the strongest decks. Player A doesn't mention to them that he's planning to just add some cards to his deck to spice it up. When he's caught during a deck check, should Player B and Player C still get to play with the majority of good cards in the pool?

At a Trios Constructed Open, Player A gets disqualified for sneakily drawing extra cards while her opponent isn't looking. Players B and C make the finals, despite the odds, where the lose and come in second. What should happen with Player A's prize money? How should coverage address the situation? Will Player A on the other team have an asterisk by his name as a champion, because he didn't actually have to play a match to earn his trophy?

At a Two-Headed Giant Prerelease, Round 2 goes to time. At the end of three turns, Player A announces, “I'm pretty sure we would have won” and starts flipping the top cards of his and his teammates decks. He's disqualified. How much life does Player B start with in Round 3? How many poison counters before Player B loses?

At a Team Modern Grand Prix, Round 9 goes to time for two teams at 5-3, during Game 3 with only the “C” minimatch still going. Player A says to the opposing team, “Hey, we really want to run this back tomorrow. Can we offer you $100 each to concede to us, instead of both of our teams not making Day 2?” A judge hears this and disqualifies Player A, but the opposing team now knows the price on a concession, so they say, “Yeah, we'll concede. Even with just two of you, good luck tomorrow.” They sign the slip, then write down their Paypal info.

There are plenty more scenarios where weird things happen if a part of a team could get disqualified but his or her team could soldier on without him or her. Making it clear that if any member of a team commits a DQ'able infraction provides social pressure for players not to commit those infractions - in addition to the DQ and possible suspension, you've just knocked your friends out too.

I don't think anyone is arguing the validity of a team when one of the players has been DQ'd. It is clear that if one player of a team is DQ'd the entire team is also no longer eligible to participate in the tournament.

For me, the discrepancy lies more between "tardy“ vs ”absent from the venue“ vs ”no longer wishes to participate."


Edit: How many rounds can a teammate be Tardy and Match Lossed for before they are considered to be no longer present?

Edited Russell Deutsch (June 23, 2017 02:45:31 PM)

That… convincingly explains why that may exist in the MTR, but like
Russell said, if a player is not DQ'ed, but drops of his own volition, that
seems like a good distinction, and the MTR doesn't discriminate between the
two. In fact (I'm at work right now so I can't check the MTR.), I believe
it talks about dropping. What's the philosophy there?

2017-06-23 2:48 GMT-04:00 Russell Deutsch <

From my understanding of the documents, teams participating in a
tournament, be it 2HG or team trios, are a unit. The team is enrolled in
the event, with players enrolled as part of the team rather than directly
as part of the tournament. A player's continued involvement in the
tournament depends on the team's continued involvement in the tournament
and vice versa. If a team no longer has all of its members in the event,
then it's no longer a legal team and can't continue in the event.

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

I'm not convinced. For one, “Innocent pay for the guilty” describes the two
remaining players paying for the one who dropped.

2 innocents (and ilegal team) v. 1 innocent per round in a complete team (101% legal team)
If u lost someone on your team, the fail is in that team, them there are not innocents because the problem is in their team… even if the drop players works alone…

I mean, if we're really arguing about the math here, technically, if they
are removed from the tournament, that's 2 innocents per round that are
affected on that team. Or, it's 2 innocents losing the tournament vs. 1
innocent per round getting a free win and being unable to play outside of
helping their teammates, however you want to quantify that. Which of those
is more important is probably not going to be the most fruitful discussion.

2017-06-23 10:05 GMT-04:00 Iván R. Molia <

But… people join to tournaments to play… not to win…
It's a game, soo fun > win. Deny someone per round to play (and everyone pay for play, no pay for see and win) because another team have an issue are not justice for me.

I think than the politics of drop an entire team if someone drops… (unless the rules of the tournament able to have or use an alternate teammate) was in the direction I was point: Don't cut the fun of a game making a “leal and issueless team” get a bye because their was paired with a “2 man team” when that team have the issue.

And even you need a 60 cards deck to play legaly… a 3man-team tournament needs 3man-teams to be legal.

I'm with Russell on this one.

If 1 member of the team has an emergency and needs to leave why penalise the other 2 players beyond they start the match 1-0 down?

I don't believe that if 1 player is DQed that the rest of the team should continue, it's a totally different scenario. 2-HG is also completely different - 2 players are playing in the same match, team trios is 3 separate matches.

It really is not clear in the MTR that “sufficient” players means all the players or is specific to the old WMC that had 4 players on the national team, 3 of them play the teams portion and if 1 of them cannot play the 4th is able to.

I do think that this needs to be clarified one way or another.

I'm not sure what the difference would be between a player dropping or being DQed. In either case we have two, presumably innocent, players who would want to continue on in the tournament and do as well as they could. Why would we allow them to continue to play in one case but prevent them from playing in the other?

Also, isn't the rule on Tardy / Absent / Dropped in the IPG?

Originally posted by Tardiness:

Upgrade: A player not in his or her seat 10 minutes into the round will receive a Match Loss and will be dropped from the tournament unless he or she reports to the Head Judge or Scorekeeper before the end of the round.

Edited Andrew Keeler (June 24, 2017 09:18:48 AM)