Kevin just posted a nice little article expanding on the philosophy behind allowing reversals when missed triggers are involved. https://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2019/08/14/reversing-decisions-and-missed-triggers/

I have a follow up question which most likely needs an answer. There are now two potential solutions for when a player says “Judge I just did {action} and missed my trigger”. We can either apply the IPG’s Missed Trigger, or we can apply the MTR’s Reversing Decisions. What sort of guidance is there for deciding which solution to use?

Obviously, if the player asks to reverse as per the MTR, we use that, and if the player has gained info or too many actions have taken place, then we apply the IPG. But I’ve seen a number of calls similar to the scenario in the blog post where the player realises immediately after they take the action.

Essentially, in situations like this, should we as judges advise the player about MTR 4.8 if we think it will allow them their trigger? It kinda feels a little close to judges giving unsolicited play advice, and removing the edge that tournament players that know the rules should have over those who don’t know them as well.

Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 15, 2019 10:29:38 PM)

One of the overarching philosophies of judging is that we don't require players to use specific “magic words” in order to do things. We don't force players to use the term “appeal”, saying “I'd like another opinion” or “I'm not sure that's right” are equally effective. We don't force a player to say “Cast Lightning Bolt, choosing you as the target”, a simple “Bolt you” is good enough. I strongly believe that we should apply the same philosophy here and not force a player to utter the exact phrase “I'd like to use section 4.8 of the MTR to reverse my decision”, but rather interpret any indication that they'd like to take back an action as such.

Originally posted by the linked article:

The interaction between Reversing Decisions and Missed Trigger does not harm this goal (“to not force a player to remind their opponent of a trigger that would make that player die”) and reduces even more the collateral “Gotcha” aspect, which has always existed as part of the Missed Trigger policy.

I think this “reduce the gotcha” concept mostly answers your question, Mark. If a player takes an action and immediately calls a judge to say that they missed a trigger, then given the option between (1) apply Missed Triggers policy, versus (2) apply Reversing Decisions, the second is the far less “gotcha” of the two. Plus, this brings us closer to what the players actually want to happen, and a “more correct” game state (though we can't always use that to decide rulings). Obviously that won't always work out; it's _very_ easy to gain information, especially once the opponent starts to interact. So we'll often still have to fall back on Missed Triggers. But it should be the fall back plan.

I don't think we should be guiding the player as to what they should do. If they call a judge because of a missed trigger they've spotted, we've also passed the point of “no additional information gained” because they've paused the game, they've had a chance to discuss with the opponent and judge, so why would we allow them to do a take back now?

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

… we've also passed the point of “no additional information gained” because they've paused the game, they've had a chance to discuss with the opponent and judge …

That would imply that it's impossible to apply Reversing Decisions on any judge call, unless the judge was already seated at the table with the players. I think that you're being very strict on the line of information gained. What MTR 4.8 specifically calls out is “Judges must carefully consider whether the player has gained information since making the play that might have affected the decision; in particular, players may not try to use opponent reactions (or lack thereof) to see if they should modify actions they committed to.”

Once the game is paused, and the player has made it clear that they'd like to reverse their decision (or even without those words, if they'd like to acknowledge a trigger that they just missed, etc.), gaining information after that point shouldn't weigh into the judge's decision unless it's clear the player intended that result. At which point, we're likely looking at cheating. If I pause the game to ask to acknowledge a trigger I just missed, and my opponent says “But I was going to cast X at end of turn anyways”, then it's not my fault that information was gained; I didn't ask to reverse my decision in order to get that information, or in order to make us of it. I have gained information since the play that could affect the decision, yes, but not until after I had already asked to reverse it. And an opponent is always free to give away information they have access to.

Making the line “gained any information about the game since the decision happened, even after the call to reverse” means that savvy players could announce “I have (card) in my hand” any time that an opponent asks to reverse a decision. Whether they're being truthful or not about that hidden information, that's information, so the opponent would lose their ability to reverse the decision at no cost to the player who announced their card. That seems clearly abusible and not the intent of MTR 4.8.