We try not to create ‘gotcha’ moments due to players not wording things perfectly. We don't want a player to lose due to not knowing the exact, approved words when both players know what is being communicated.

Nami has asked an imprecise question. “What's in your graveyard?” This question could be interpreted as ”What are the names of all the cards in your graveyard?“ This is a question about free information that Annie would have to answer. Since Annie didn't answer this question she must have interpreted it differently. The question could be interpreted as ”What are the card types of all the cards in your graveyard?“ This is a question about derived information that Annie doesn't have to answer. However, once she chooses to answer it she must do so honestly. (4.1 Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.) Annie is answering the question ”What are some of the card types in your graveyard?" This is not the question Nami was trying to ask and I don't think any player would reasonably assume it was.

We can't just decide if Annie's statement was legal. We must evaluate it in the context in which she said it. Since Annie's statement was in response to Nami's question she (and we) assume it was a valid answer to her question. In a vacuum Annie's statement is true (although misleading). In response to Nami's question it is a misrepresentation of derived information.

If Annie was aware that her response was illegal I would DQ for USC-cheating. More likely an investigation would reveal that Annie believed she was giving an acceptable answer and I would give her a warning for TE-CPV. In this case I see no reason not to back up to the point of the infraction.

Edited Brian Denmark (July 11, 2013 02:42:11 PM)

I have an issue with how Annie worded her answer. She knew that Nami was asking in reference to Tarmogoyf, hence her answer about card types. My issue is that she said "just an enchantment and a land." If she was referring to types of cards in her graveyard, then she is incorrectly representing derived information–there's not just an enchantment and land her graveyard, there's also a Tribal.

Assuming she intended to mislead Nami about the types of cards in her graveyard, the question becomes, does Annie know that misrepresenting derived information is against the rules? If so, then it's a DQ for USC - Cheating (she was trying to gain an advantage, and knowingly violating the rules). If not, then I'd give Annie a Warning for TE - PCV, and then back up to the point where Nami asked about Annie's graveyard.

Edited Jack Hesse (July 11, 2013 04:59:18 PM)

Originally posted by Brian Denmark:

We try not to create ‘gotcha’ moments due to players not wording things perfectly. We don't want a player to lose due to not knowing the exact, approved words when both players know what is being communicated.

Nami has asked an imprecise question. “What's in your graveyard?” This question could be interpreted as ”What are the names of all the cards in your graveyard?“ This is a question about free information that Annie would have to answer. Since Annie didn't answer this question she must have interpreted it differently. The question could be interpreted as ”What are the card types of all the cards in your graveyard?“ This is a question about derived information that Annie doesn't have to answer. However, once she chooses to answer it she must do so honestly. (4.1 Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.) Annie is answering the question ”What are some of the card types in your graveyard?" This is not the question Nami was trying to ask and I don't think any player would reasonably assume it was.

We can't just decide if Annie's statement was legal. We must evaluate it in the context in which she said it. Since Annie's statement was in response to Nami's question she (and we) assume it was a valid answer to her question. In a vacuum Annie's statement is true (although misleading). In response to Nami's question it is a misrepresentation of derived information.

If Annie was aware that her response was illegal I would DQ for USC-cheating. More likely an investigation would reveal that Annie believed she was giving an acceptable answer and I would give her a warning for TE-CPV. In this case I see no reason not to back up to the point of the infraction.

As a judge, if a player asks me a question, I should not give a misleading answer to a player who asks an imprecise question. Players are not obliged to follow this constraint.

Annie's answer is literally correct. The enchantment and land are in her graveyard. If Annie had just answered, “a land,” it would still be legal (although I'd caution her to be careful about skirting the edge of the rules). We do not reinterpret the question a player asked and penalize the opponent for not answering this new question.

Annie isn't being nice, but she has not done anything against the rules of Magic (other than playing Bitterblossom in a PTQ, when there is no PTQ format in which Bitterblossom is legal).

This seems quite akin to the following situation, to me:

Annie and Nami are playing a game. Nami says “How many cards are in your hand?”. Annie replies “3”, when she actually has 4. Annie has 4 cards, so clearly she also has 3 cards, but she is misrepresenting the number of cards in her hand. For this, I believe we would give a PCV-Warning at least, and UC-Cheating at worst.

The analogue is that rather than asking for the number of cards in Annie's hand, Nami is asking for the number of card types in Annie's graveyard (clearly this was the intent of the question). By the same token, Annie answered “2” when the true answer was “3”. Clearly she has 2 if she has 3, but she did not answer honestly. For the same reason as above, I would award the same penalty as above.

EDIT: I should mention (not sure if it's relevant, but I'll mention it anyway) that at Regular I'd probably back up the game state, if possible, to Declare Blockers to allow Nami to re-block (or kill the Tarmogoyf, or whatnot as appropriate).

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 11, 2013 10:01:16 PM)

At competitive REL, I don't think we as judges should get into the habit of interpreting “intent” other than situations outlined in the MTR i.e. OoOS. Even when answering Judge questions, mis-interpreting the intent of a question can inadvertently lead to coaching the player.

For example, if A swings with Geist of Saint Traft, N says, “Blocks?” and A says go ahead. Then A missed his Angel trigger. The player clearly intended to swing for 6, but we wouldn't rule in his favour.

At competitive, players need to be held to a higher standard of precise play. This includes asking precise questions, or simply verifying information for themselves.

Well, after translating this scenario into Chinese and posting it onto the Local Judge Forum, we got an unexpected reply from one of the Chinese Judges:

Given no recent PTQs have been run in Legacy (or were there any?), this event is most likely a Modern event, so A would have committed Deck/Decklist Problem for running Bitterblossom in her deck.

Seriously speaking, if A said “this enchantment” (and imagined she was saying this while browsering through her graveyard) and did nothing trying to hide the Tribal part of the type line from N, I don't think there is any infractions. A could reply with a simpler answer like “two cards” and N could (and should) also double-check which the enchantment in question was.

What is at the heart of this question is whether or not the derived information has been misrepresented or not. With that in mind in America when on trial for some offence you must take an oath to speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Misrepresenting information is covered by the first and last part of that statement, but not the middle; you can omit information in derived answers from other players. As always you investigate, and determine the relevant details.

Would anyone's answer change if Nami and Annie didn't share a language? What if Nami had just pointed at Annie's graveyard in this situation and Annie had held up two fingers?

“There are three categories of information: free, derived and private.” Any question about information internal to the game is about one of those three categories. This question is clearly not about any private information, therefore it must be about free or derived information. At issue here is; 1. What did Nami think she was asking? 2. What did Annie think Nami was asking? and 3. How did Annie represent her statement.

Nami's question being imperfect shouldn't be the problem here. No question is ever completely unambiguous. If we allow players to willfully misinterpret questions than it is never misrepresenting derived information so long as they can re-frame the question. e.g. “What is the power of that creature?” “2 (is the printed power but the exalted trigger makes it 3).”

My issue isn't with the omission of information. It is with Annie's representation of her statement. Had she said “Just this enchantment and a land. Those are the only card types in my graveyard.” I believe we would all be in agreement that this is misrepresentation of derived information. She didn't say the second sentence in my example. But the way she worded her answer was clearly designed (with her understanding of Nami's intent) to lead Nami do believe that she was giving that answer.

Both players understood the question to be about a specific piece of derived information and Annie's answer was worded to imply to Nami that the answer described that piece of derived information.

Originally posted by Zhaoben Xu:

Well, after translating this scenario into Chinese and posting it onto the Local Judge Forum, we got an unexpected reply from one of the Chinese Judges:

Given no recent PTQs have been run in Legacy (or were there any?), this event is most likely a Modern event, so A would have committed Deck/Decklist Problem for running Bitterblossom in her deck.

That's kinda funny. Now it's not a communications problem anymore, but a decklist problem ;)

Originally posted by Brian Denmark:

Would anyone's answer change if Nami and Annie didn't share a language? What if Nami had just pointed at Annie's graveyard in this situation and Annie had held up two fingers?

I don't think it relates if the two players didn't share a language. The scenario is about whether Annie gave false or incomplete information and should be penalized because she supposedly knew what her opponent meant. If there isn't a common language then the misunderstanding doesn't come from knowing or not knowing the intent of the question but simply not knowing the question. I think it's a different situation.

If Nami pointed at the graveyard and Annie held up two fingers, how is she lying? Holding up two fingers could mean multiple things. At which point Nami can assume what the two fingers means like she did in this case, or she can not trust her opponent and look in the yard for herself.

In either situation Annie hasn't lied to the question or gesture being asked. It's not Annie's job to figure out what Nami's intentions are about derived information, even if it is spelled out for her. It's her job to either truthfully answer the question or not at all. What if Annie wasn't paying attention to Nami talk about possibly having to kill goyf, and tuned in at the “What's in your yard?” is it still the same problem. Do we punish her for spacing out until being directly asked a question?

I think we are getting caught up in that in this situation the intent SEEMS blatantly obvious, and we are trying to say that because the situation appears to be obvious that that overrules what question was actually asked. Should Annie be force to try to come up with all the possible reasons Nami could be asking the question, or get smacked with a penalty? Whether she knows the intent or not she shouldn't have to hold her opponents hand to figure out the derived information. Especially when the graveyard is right there, and Nami has access to the oracle text of the cards. So Annie answers the question asked, and if she can do so in a way that is true, even if it is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) based on Nami's actual intent of the question, she has still done what was asked.

Like Adam said earlier we start to get into dangerous waters when we make rulings based off players intent. No matter how obvious one might think the intent may be, if that's not what is said then we can't mandate that players be forced to follow their opponents reasoning for that question. As long as the game state remains legal and the players don't blatantly lie (even if the truth isn't exactly helpful) the players shouldn't be expected to follow their opponents lines of thought. Being able to do that is a skill right? One that we want to reward players for, but that doesn't mean we punish them if they can't or choose not to (again so long as a legal game state is maintained).

Originally posted by Joseph Kyle:

in America when on trial for some offence you must take an oath to speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

The MTR and IPG are the foundation of our legal system; while other systems may provide great ideas, they don't necessarily apply, nor modify, our policy documents. Nowhere in the MTR or IPG do we require “the whole truth”, nor “nothing but the truth”. The Communication and Shortcuts sections of the MTR are actually much more exhaustive in their description of expectations.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion!

I will rephrase and drop the simile. Because she did not ask a clear question the answer was open to interpretation and it leaves us trying to determine whether or not this question is about free information or derived information. The premise of her question was to determine the P/T of the Goyf which would be derived in nature. She accepted the answer that she was given which was types of cards in the graveyard not the names of the cards in the graveyard. This brings me to the relevant rules for types of information: MTR 4.1 defines free information as, Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.

• The name of any visible object.
  The type of any counter in a public zone.
  The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached) and current zone of any object.
  Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the current match.
  The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active
  

It defines derived information as, Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information includes:

• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
  All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.
  Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.
  

The MTR 4.1 also says this about governing information:

• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
  Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
  Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
  At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.
  

Because player N accepted the answer given to her about derived information, given an ambiguous question, I would rule that she was asking about derived information. Because it is derived information player A is allowed to omit information but to lie about it. No infraction.

Originally posted by Joseph Kyle:

I will rephrase and drop the simile. Because she did not ask a clear question the answer was open to interpretation and it leaves us trying to determine whether or not this question is about free information or derived information. The premise of her question was to determine the P/T of the Goyf which would be derived in nature. She accepted the answer that she was given which was types of cards in the graveyard not the names of the cards in the graveyard. This brings me to the relevant rules for types of information: MTR 4.1 defines free information as, Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.

• The name of any visible object.
  The type of any counter in a public zone.
  The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached) and current zone of any object.
  Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the current match.
  The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active
  

It defines derived information as, Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information includes:

• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
  All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.
  Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.
  

The MTR 4.1 also says this about governing information:

• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
  Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
  Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
  At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.
  

Because player N accepted the answer given to her about derived information, given an ambiguous question, I would rule that she was asking about derived information. Because it is derived information player A is allowed to omit information but to lie about it. No infraction.

Interesting take. I disagree, though. The premise on which I disagree is the statement that Annie is not representing derived information incorrectly (are there enough negatives in that sentence?). Here's how I see it:

In my experience, if you have a 2-item list with an “and” conjunction, as in this case, the typical understanding of that construction as an exhaustive, 2-item list (your experience may vary, but this is how I understand that construction). By phrasing her answer like this, Annie is (in my reading of the situation) saying to Nami “Here is an exhaustive 2-item list of the 3 card types in my graveyard”. Clearly this is an incorrect representation, since you are claiming that a 3-item list is exhaustive by only listing 2 of the items.

Personally, I can't think of any examples where a 2-item list delineated by an “and” is not intended as an exhaustive list. If you have any examples (does not need to be Magic-related), please enlighten me; I could very well just be saying something quite foolish. It's happened before =P

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

If you have any examples (does not need to be Magic-related), please enlighten me

The Player Communication policy does not prohibit partial answers. For example, if I attack with a Tithe Drinker and you are contemplating blocking with a Grizzly Bears, and you ask “What is he?”, it would be common for me to say “It's a 2/1 and it has lifelink”, omitting the Extort ability because it isn't relevant to the combat. We can't force players to give the “whole truth” all the time, because it is too burdensome and could simply result in players refusing to communicate at all for fear of committing an infraction.

Much like a Four Horseman combo, discussions sometimes get into a “rut” - I'll call it that, because it certainly isn't a “loop” per our understanding of such things. :)

It's at a point like this, in this very discussion, that it's too easy to devolve into a lot of back-and-forth debate about some points. And, too often, that becomes a “dumpster fire”, feelings are hurt, etc. So it seems appropriate for me to insert this timely caution:
Please try to progress the discussion, and PLEASE avoid repeating points you've already made. Also, consider the thousands of other judges reading this, some of whom might still want to add their unique perspective - but can't seem to find an opening to insert their thoughts.

(I'm not suggesting this is already happening - just that I see the foundation on which such things often build.)

Carry on - this has been interesting, indeed!