AP: “Go”
NAP untaps.
AP: "upkeep, Gigadrowse“
NAP: (has two cards in hand, draws the third) ”er … did you say something?“
AP: ”upkeep, Gigadrowse“
NAP: ”Oh, ok.“ (puts back a card from their hand on top) ”Mana Leak"

Juuuudge!!

What do you do?

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Dec. 10, 2018 04:14:22 AM)

First I would determine if the top card of the NAP's library was known to both players due to some previous action. If not I would determine if both cards in the NAP's hand were known to both players. If either of these scenarios are true we have a GRV (Not GPE-Looking at Extra Cards as this was not a Dexterity error) which can be corrected by ensuring the correct card is on top of the AP's library. If it is not, I would then be looking at pursuing a UC-Cheating investigation.

If the top card was not known and at least one card in NAP's hand was not known then we are looking at a HCE as a card was illegally moved from one hidden zone to another hidden zone without the AP's permission. (I would still suspect UC-Cheating and ask the appropriate questions) If all checks out then I would proceed with HCE. First I would determine the smallest Set, ie were any of the 2 cards in the NAP players hand known to the AP. Based on this answer I would create the set of unknown cards and have the AP select a card from the set and shuffle it into the randomized portion of NAP's library.

Edited Kyle Peterson (Dec. 10, 2018 03:32:26 PM)

Originally posted by Kyle Peterson:

First I would determine if the top card of the NAP's library was known to both players due to some previous action. If not I would determine if both cards in the NAP's hand were known to both players. If either of these scenarios are true we have a GRV (Not GPE-Looking at Extra Cards as this was not a Dexterity error) which can be corrected by ensuring the correct card is on top of the AP's library. If it is not, I would then be looking at pursuing a UC-Cheating investigation.

If the top card was not known and at least one card in NAP's hand was not known then we are looking at a HCE as a card was illegally moved from one hidden zone to another hidden zone without the AP's permission. (I would still suspect UC-Cheating and ask the appropriate questions) If all checks out then I would proceed with HCE. First I would determine the smallest Set, ie were any of the 2 cards in the NAP players hand known to the AP. Based on this answer I would create the set of unknown cards and have the AP select a card from the set and shuffle it into the randomized portion of NAP's library.

Kyle:
- would you assess a different infraction based on known/unknown cards?
- would you assess HCE to a player that simply drew for their turn?

Maybe NAP didn't say “upkeep, Gigadrowse” loud enough, check that before trying to assess infractions and penalties. Particularly in crowded tournaments, players are expected to make sure they are heard by their opponent.

I don't know if I agree with Joaquin about ensuring I was heard. We could be speaking different languages, I could believe that I was heard but perhaps I was misheard. A variety of things could have led me to think we communicated effectively.

For me, I find a few things missing here from AP and NAP.

AP (Angela) never declared targets for their Gigadrowse. Angela didn’t even do what most players I have observed who played Gigadrowse, or really anything during the Upkeep, where they say after their own declaring of ending their turn, “I have effects during your Upkeep” or similar.

NAP (Nicole) draws for turn, as is the usual thing that happens most turns, and then asks if something was said. Not sure of the number, but I would bet 99% of turns don’t have Instants cast or other abilities activated in the Upkeep. It’s plausible the drawing and verbal statement happened at or about the same time. Depending on the nature of the game (maybe the players were friendly and talking throughout the match; maybe they were stone silent; perhaps, they were communicating effectively), would depend on where this investigation would go.

We have this awkward spot in this scenario where Angela never declared a target(s) for Gigadrowse and Nicole never confirmed what the targets were before casting Mana Leak. This line of back and forth would lead me to think that Angela has cast Gigadrowse before this turn and has used it potentially to great effect, tapping everything or most everything of Nicole’s. I honestly see this as a potential for cheating by Nicole and would want to investigate further to try and prove myself wrong. I imagine with Gigadrowse being played by Angela, Angela wouldn’t know the contents of Nicole’s hand.

Perhaps Angela is trying to gain an advantage here. They could potentially be fishing for a HCE to be levied against Nicole. I am curious why a judge was called. If we were called in this situation because Angela wasn’t happy with the Mana Leak being played, that means that Angela wants their Gigadrowse to resolve. But, if that’s true – why didn’t Angela declare targets?


Now, if this isn’t cheating. We certainly have ourselves in a pickle. Depending on the answers given when I ask the players about their communication towards each other in this game and previous ones would greatly sway what I would want to do. As written in the IPG, it would seem HCE applies; I might be wrong here, but I don’t believe the philosophy behind HCE applies though. I believe that we have communication breakdown. I don’t necessarily believe Nicole made an error.

Just a quick interjection here: Franciesco didn't tell us what target(s) were chosen for Gigadrowse; assuming that AP didn't name any target is a red herring, and distracts from the point of Francesco's interesting dilemma.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Just a quick interjection here: Franciesco didn't tell us what target(s) were chosen for Gigadrowse; assuming that AP didn't name any target is a red herring, and distracts from the point of Francesco's interesting dilemma.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume AP had a Mana Short instead of Gigadrowse.
What do you do?

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Dec. 17, 2018 09:44:54 AM)