This question is based on the GUARD YOUR WORDS thread in KP from last week. The answer is somewhat confusing to me, and I've constructed a similar (I think) situation to ask about.

Say Annie is attacking Nami with a Maro. Nami is at 3 life. Nami says to Annie “How many cards are in your hand?” rather than “What's Maro's P/T?” or something similar. Annie shows Nami the backs of 2 Magic cards, which are indeed in her hand, and says “These 2 cards are in my hand”. Nami says “OK, take the damage”. Then Annie slides one of the cards slightly to the side, revealing a 3rd card, and says “you're dead”.

Is this situation different in any way from the situation from that thread? If so, why, and how would you fix it? A couple followup situations:

1) What if, during Annie's precombat main phase, her only play was to cast a Divination, at which point Nami knew Annie's hand was not empty (so Nami had cause to know that Annie's hand was not 2 cards and Annie was being “misleading”)?

2) What if, rather than the slight of hand used here, which is difficult to track, Annie just took the card she drew for the turn, and, rather than adding it to her hand, just laid it on the table face-down in front of her before attacking, but Nami was looking away at the time so Nami didn't notice that Annie's hand size didn't change (but Nami could, if she was aware enough, notice the errant card on the table and ask about it if she chose to).

These 3 situations all seem like textbook PCV to me, and they all seem to be uncomfortably close to the situation from the KP thread that I'm not comfortable drawing a distinction between them. What am I missing?

While the number of cards in a player's hand is derived information, taking physical action to deliberately obscure the number of cards in your hand is not OK. The MTR specifically says that players are “entitled access” to derived information, and Annie's little act of legerdemain violates that clause by making it impossible for Nami to verify that Annie actually has 3 cards.

The main difference between your scenario and the one in “Guard Your Words” is that, in “Guard Your Words,” Annie never obscured the physical cards in her graveyard.

Legerdemain. Very nice Paul.

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

While the number of cards in a player's hand is derived information, taking physical action to deliberately obscure the number of cards in your hand is not OK. The MTR specifically says that players are “entitled access” to derived information, and Annie's little act of legerdemain violates that clause by making it impossible for Nami to verify that Annie actually has 3 cards.

The main difference between your scenario and the one in “Guard Your Words” is that, in “Guard Your Words,” Annie never obscured the physical cards in her graveyard.

Define “obscure”. If Annie had 2 cards in her graveyard and they were stacked on top of each other, that's somewhat “obscuring”, isn't it? If the argument is “Nami could ask to look at Annie's graveyard at any time”, isn't the same true of a hand? As far as I know, there is no rule against “let me count the cards in your hand”, just as there is no rule agianst “let me see the cards in your graveyard”.

Additionally, everyone I know (myself included) plays with their graveyard in a single stack, unless they're playing Dredge or a Dredge variant, so this is a very common issue.

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 17, 2013 07:51:12 AM)

Intentionally hiding cards from your opponent so that they cannot determine derived information correctly is not CPV. It's Cheating.

Forgetting that you still had one card from your hand on the table and thus showing the wrong number is CPV.

There is even an Un-card called Cheatyface based on sleight of hand being cheating.

This is very different than your opponent not reading the unobscured contents of your graveyard.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Intentionally hiding cards from your opponent so that they cannot determine derived information correctly is not CPV. It's Cheating.

But Nami didn't ask to see the cards in Annie's hand. Nami asked Annie to count the cards in her (Annie's) hand for her (Nami) so that Nami didn't have to do it herself. This seems similar, to me, to Nami asking Annie to count the cards (or list the card types, whatever) for the Tarmogoyf in the KP situation. I don't see how these are different.

This is very different than your opponent not reading the unobscured contents of your graveyard.

Once again, I'd like a definition for the word “unobscured”. I don't think we agree on the definition of that word, and I'd like to make sure we both think it means what the other thinks it means.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

But Nami didn't ask to see the cards in Annie's hand. Nami asked Annie to count the cards in her (Annie's) hand for her (Nami) so that Nami didn't have to do it herself. This seems similar, to me, to Nami asking Annie to count the cards (or list the card types, whatever) for the Tarmogoyf in the KP situation. I don't see how these are different.

The difference is largely in context with the question being asked by the player, especially with the specificity of the information and the answer the opponent could potentially provide. This is something that each judge may have to apply some judgment to the situation in order to assess, in whether an “incomplete” answer was provided or an “incorrect” answer was provided.

For example, “Card types in graveyard?” might be a question where an incomplete answer is workable if the opponent goes that route. Whereas “Cards in hand?” does not lend itself to an incomplete answer. Especially if it's something like “These two cards.” and the player is actually still holding three. That's not really an incomplete answer at that point.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Once again, I'd like a definition for the word “unobscured”. I don't think we agree on the definition of that word, and I'd like to make sure we both think it means what the other thinks it means.

This may or may not be a worthy line of thought; the MTR doesn't use the word “obscured” at any point when it comes to the Player Communication policy. Attempting to apply a CPV to such situations, which could reasonably happen and are beyond either player's control, is very unlikely to be a reasonably approach. Especially when we add such factors as poor lighting, glare on card sleeves, etc.

The player is actively hiding a card in hand from their opponent. An equivalent for the GY would be if the player hid a card under their palm while pointing to the remaining cards in the GY and saying “these cards are my GY”

Don't get caught up in language and focus on actions and intent.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'd like a definition for the word “unobscured”. I don't think we agree on the definition of that word

What I believe we all mean by unobscured is: Nami is not doing anything to prevent Annie form determining and figuring out derived information correctly. Intentionally hiding a card is preventing Annie for being able to accurately determine the gamestate.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

everyone I know (myself included) plays with their graveyard in a single stack, unless they're playing Dredge or a Dredge variant, so this is a very common issue

It doesn’t matter if her yard is in a single stack or spread out in a way where all the cards are visible at a glance. As long as Annie is able to determine what is exactly there (this may require Annie to pick up and look at the Graveyard). In my experience, players do not give their opponent their hands so they can count the cards themselves. Typically a player will fan out their hand and allow their opponent to count the cards. When they do that if they intentionally hide a card, then they are obscuring that information by not allowing their opponent the ability to count the cards correctly. The same thing would be true if Annie asked what was in the graveyard and Nami fanned out the graveyard and intentionally hid a card under others so it couldn’t be seen.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

2) What if, rather than the slight of hand used here, which is difficult to track, Annie just took the card she drew for the turn, and, rather than adding it to her hand, just laid it on the table face-down in front of her before attacking, but Nami was looking away at the time so Nami didn't notice that Annie's hand size didn't change (but Nami could, if she was aware enough, notice the errant card on the table and ask about it if she chose to).

It is Annie’s responsibility to ask a question that will yield a desired answer. And it is Nami’s responsibility to answer the question truthfully and in a way that does not prevent Annie from being able to verify and determine the information herself. Saying “these 2 cards” while showing the backs of 2 cards with a third hidden is misrepresenting the information and preventing Annie form verifying the answer. I would also say that an answer of “these 2 cards” while I have a third face down on the table is also misrepresenting the information. I would argue that the third card is being intentionally hid from the other player (granted it’s not a great hiding spot). But the player is intentionally separating the card and not offering it to the player to be counted/included in the hand.

TL;DR: Paul summed up it pretty clearly, and like Shawn said, don't get hung up on the language. It all boils down to this: Is a player intentionally preventing the other player from having access to the information, and hiding a card is exactly this.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'd like a definition for the word “unobscured”

I hope this doesn't sound too flippant, but … dictionary.com?

Obscured/Unobscured may be useful English words for discussing this topic, but they really have no rules meaning - and, thus, don't really require a definition.

As Brian mentioned, this scenario is different from the KP scenario because Nami asked a much better question. When Annie represents derived information incorrectly, she's committing a CPV - and a DQ investigation is in order.

The parallel to the KP scenario would be more like this:
Annie attacks with Maro; her hand is face-down, in a single pile. Nami asks “what's in your hand?”, and Annie replies “oh, maybe a Counterspell or two”. Nami assumes that means “two cards”, then acts on her assumption. Again, Nami asked a “bad” question, and Annie benefited from that.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

For example, “Card types in graveyard?” might be a question where an incomplete answer is workable if the opponent goes that route. Whereas “Cards in hand?” does not lend itself to an incomplete answer. Especially if it's something like “These two cards.” and the player is actually still holding three. That's not really an incomplete answer at that point.

Thanks for the complete answer (I only quoted part of it because this is the part I'd like to reply to). If you don't mind, could you expand on this point a bit? Specifically, if you don't mind, the following 2 questions:

1) Why does “Cards in <zone>?” (or the related question “Card <quality> in <zone>?”) have a different requirement on the specificity of the answer depending on what zone it is? Which zones have a specificity requirement? Or perhaps I'm reading the emphasis of your point wrong, and you intended to emphasize that “Cards” vs “Card <quality>” is different, in which case please elaborate on that.

2) (this may depend on your answer to question 1) How (if at all) is “These 2 cards” (when you actually have 3) different from “These 2 card types” (when you actually have 3)? Both the qualities and the number of cards in a zone are derived information, so they should be equal, no?

Nicholas Brown
As long as Annie is able to determine what is exactly there (this may require Annie to pick up and look at the Graveyard)

This is precisely what I'm referring to when I mention how I'm confused by this. Nami (you switched the roles of Annie and Nami; to remember it easily, (A)nnie = (A)ctive Player, (N)ami = (N)on-active player) has the option to say “Can I see your graveyard?”, to which Annie must comply. Nami can also ask “Can I see your hand?”, a request to which Annie must also comply in full (by fanning out the cards, as you describe). However, Nami did not ask “Can I see your hand?” She asked the much different question “How many cards are in your hand?” To answer this request, if we use the info from the KP discussion and answer only the question asked and not the (obvious, imo, and in your opinion too, I'm sure) question implied (which is “Can I see your hand?”), Annie is not required to show Nami her hand, the same way as Annie is not required to fan out her graveyard for Nami when she asks the question about card types…I think? As I said, this is confusing to me, so I could be wrong.

This made me think of another related scenario, which might fit the mould a bit better: Let's say the same situation happens. When Nami asks Annie the question, Annie takes her hand and puts it on the table face-down, as she was holding it (she makes no effort to adjust any cards to misrepresent any information). Due to the way she was holding her hand, only 2 cards are showing when Annie makes this gesture, but Annie herself does not do anything to prevent Nami from counting the cards, should she be able to see or notice the third card somehow. Then Annie answers “Approximately two.” In this case, as with a standard graveyard, Nami is free to ask Annie the followup “Can I check?” or “Show me”, just like in the KP scenario, and we assume that Annie doesn't want to get DQ'd and will thus comply in full with such a request. However, Nami chooses not to make said request and thus the same result occurs.

Is this situation a bit more illustrative?

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 17, 2013 10:40:17 AM)

With the sleeve question we are really starting to get out there in
feasibility. Realistically players help each other out a fair amount of
the time. I'm also not sure how you got that the player does not have to
show the opponent their hand from our KP discussion. The player may not
deny the opponent the ability to find information about zones like that on
their own. “Can I see your graveyard?” can not be met with the answer
“no”.

Approximately two? How many times have you really had to deal with a player being that intentionally difficult? Don't try to find corners in the policy for obscure scenarios that you concoct just to test the wording in the policy. Use constructive scenarios that are actually likely to occur and you'll see that the policy was written for practical enforcement, not policy buster made up scenarios.

Originally posted by Benjamin McDole:

I'm also not sure how you got that the player does not have to
show the opponent their hand from our KP discussion. The player may not
deny the opponent the ability to find information about zones like that on
their own. “Can I see your graveyard?” can not be met with the answer
“no”.

Where did you get the idea that I suggested anything to the contrary? Of course this is the case. However, the question asked in my parallel scenario is not “Can I see your hand?” (the parallel to the question “Can I see your graveyard?”); or do we allow questioning by intent in this situation to force Annie to show her hand, and if we do, why is questioning by intent allowed here but not in the KP scenario?

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 17, 2013 11:19:11 AM)