“Most tournament shortcuts involve skipping one or more priority passes to the mutual understanding of all players; if a player wishes to demonstrate or use a new tournament shortcut entailing any number of priority passes, he or she must be clear where the game state will end up as part of the request.”

“A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut”

Would this come into play? Would Andrew have to say something along the lines of “dragon, swing, draw” at the VERY least? If so would he not have to wait for Norbert to mutually agree to the outcome?

For those saying we should assess a GL for GPE-DEC here, consider the following situation:

Player A finishes his turn and says “Go.” Player B untaps his lands and draws his card for the turn. Player A calls you over, explaining he wanted to do something during Player B's upkeep. Do you also assess a GL for GPE-DEC here?

To me, the situations are similar. In each case a player has advanced the game state beyond where the other player wanted to, and then drew a card which they would otherwise have legally been able to draw.

In that case, it is the nonactive player's responsibility to say “stop on your upkeep.”

The first thing to look for is making sure, that there was no intent involved. Was it the first time Andrew used Bident? Had he attacked with a creature before and confirmed drawing cards? If he had, it might seem a bit improbable, that he suddenly forgot about it (although in heat of the moment it happens). Also finding out, that players hadn't established a shortcut allowing them to do something like this.

I wouldn't consider checking what cards are in Norbert's hand, since:
1. They shouldn't be taken into consideration
2. By basing judgment on content of N's hand, we give strategic information to Andrew (i.e., if he has something to respond with)

Originally posted by Joseph Wiesenberg:

1) The IPG has language about an infraction not being DEC if it occurred as a result of/immediately after a prior GRV, and Andrew skipping several priority passes to resolve his bident trigger sounds like a GRV to me.

I can't find anything in this situation to support reasoning for DEC also. Let's take a look at the definition:

IPG 2.3
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order. If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards. Additionally, it is Drawing Extra Cards if a player has excess cards in their hand that he or she cannot account for.

Andrew put a card in his hand due to Bident of Thassa ability, so it was not illegal in this way. It was also not a result of resolving objects on stack in an incorrect order.

What it looks like to me is a TE - CPV. By not explicitly saying what he is doing, Andrew violated free information access by missing out “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state”. Hence the remedy - asking a Head Judge for permission to back up to the point after Stormbreath Dragon had come into play (the play itself wasn't illegal), to the Beginning of Combat step. This was the point that the communication problem arose.

Edited Piotr Łopaciuk (Oct. 9, 2013 10:54:54 PM)

From the definition of CPV: "This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion."

I cannot think of a scenario where not saying something should lead to a CPV.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

I cannot think of a scenario where not saying something should lead to a CPV.

Easy: “Correct me if I'm wrong: you have 35 2/2 tokens and 3 life.” :)

Originally posted by Eric Crump:

In that case, it is the nonactive player's responsibility to say “stop on your upkeep.”

Your position then is that we do nothing in this case, because NAP didn't speak up fast enough?

Bident's draw triggers on damage. If he had slammed it down tapped, marked down damage, then drawn before the opponent could respond, I could see other interpretations. However, from the scenario as described, Andrew has just finished declaring attackers and has drawn a card.

I'm comfortable ruling this DEC. There'd have to be some pretty extenuating circumstances to convince me to rule otherwise (i.e. an established shortcut).

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Your position then is that we do nothing in this case, because NAP didn't speak up fast enough?

I usually tell my opponent, “Pass turn, stop on your upkeep.” In the instance of the OP, the active player just slammed down a creature sideways giving Norbert no opportunity to act.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

However, from the scenario as described, Andrew has just finished declaring attackers and has drawn a card.

Considering the NAP has no blockers in the given scenario, it seems reasonable to assume the player has in fact moved to combat damage and drawn the card before marking damage. (Valid OoOS) Ultimately, this may be incorrect because his opponent wants to intervene, but it's no more incorrect than shortcutting to the declaration of attackers.

Originally posted by Eric Crump:

Nathaniel Lawrence
Your position then is that we do nothing in this case, because NAP didn't speak up fast enough?

I usually tell my opponent, “Pass turn, stop on your upkeep.” In the instance of the OP, the active player just slammed down a creature sideways giving Norbert no opportunity to act.

I don't want to get too far off track here, but my point is that I don't believe a communications mistake like this should put either player in a situation where they did not get a chance to take some action that the game rules should have allowed them to take if given adequate time to do so. Certainly it is good form to say “On your upkeep…” but if the opponent is moving too quickly (such as untapping with one hand while drawing a card with the other simultaneously, or drawing before untapping) then your statements seem to propose that we shrug our shoulders and tell NAP that they need to be faster about alerting their opponent to a desired course of action, when in fact it seems to me that the responsibility is quite clearly more on AP's shoulders to slow down and give the opponent a chance to act at the appropriate time. (Edit: That isn't to say that both players aren't going to get lectured a bit on being communicative. I just think it's very wrongheaded to leave the onus in NAP's hands over a scenario like this; BOTH players need to be attentive.)

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Oct. 10, 2013 11:13:58 AM)

As Riki has pointed out, it cannot in any way be TE-CPV.

Drawing Extra Cards requires a player to put cards into their hand that they are not entitled to, and no other GPE or CPV has occurred.

As presented, the active player thinks that they have successfully attacked, dealt damage and resolved a trigger, what they haven't done is given their opponent any chance to respond to any component of that, which is the problem.

One small aside…. Often when I play against less experienced players, I attack, and once the attack has resolved, my opponent untaps, and starts to draw a card. Even though I want to do something in my second main phase, a lot of newer players assume that combat happens as the last thing in a turn, and just start their turn without any prompting. Would you consider my opponents have committed GPE - DEC if they manage to get the card into their hand without noticing? Can I get a free win by waiting until they get that card into their hands before saying “Oh wait I wasn't done with my turn”?

Now back to the actual scenario. What we have here is a player playing too fast, getting too excited and skipping way too far ahead without letting their opponent do something. It's not GPE-DEC. It's GPE-GRV, rewind back to the casting of the spell, random card from hand on top of the library, continue with the spell on the stack. Remind the player to not rush ahead, communicate with their opponent and make sure that the opponent doesn't have any responses to the spell, then the attack, then the trigger.

I find it very hard to believe that this is a GRV. GRV is not an infraction for poor communication; there is no infraction for poor communication.

When we look at this scenario, what is the first point when a visible infraction occurs? Players often play their haste creatures tapped to indicate they want to attack with them. When they do, but their opponent wants to respond in Beginning of Combat, the accepted judge response is to not find an infraction, but instead have the attacking player rewind their attacks and put the game back in Beginning of Combat. It's already been made clear that no CPV has been committed because nothing involves free, derived, or hidden information. As a result, the first observable point of error is when Anax draws a card; there is no GRV or CPV that proceeds. Anax should not have drawn this card, did not offer his opponent the chance to acknowledge the draw, and therefore committed GPE - DEC. The appropriate penalty is Game Loss, subject to the usual downgrade paths.

Darcy, you seem to be overthinking it a bit; it really is as simple as what Mark Brown stated.

It could be argued that the AP proposed (several) shortcuts, past priority passes that are often skipped in real Magic, and that NAP wants to interrupt and act earlier in that series of actions - i.e., not really an infraction.

However, it's worth recording a GRV for skipping all those priority passes, partly to allow later upgrades (if the behavior justifies it) and partly for tracking.