If a CPV or GPE prevents a penalty from being issued for Drawing Extra Cards, do we still need to perform the DEC remedy?

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Does “Bounce it?” necessarily mean that Natalie was asking for oracle text? Furthermore, is answering “yes” to that question necessarily false?

Cards are treated like they have their oracle text printed on them. So if there was a card out there that said “at the beginning of the next upkeep, you lose the game.” and the oracle text changed it to “at the beginning of the next upkeep you win the game.” That card would be treated like it read the latter text on it, and would/should never be treated as the former. So yeah, Antony was asking what the card did, which should be treated as the oracle text.

As for the second question, you are expected to know the oracle text of the cards in your deck. So answering “yes” to something that is false would be misrepresenting it, because you are supposed to know what it really does.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

If a CPV or GPE prevents a penalty from being issued for Drawing Extra Cards, do we still need to perform the DEC remedy?

No, you can't use a remedy for something that isn't being issued as a penalty. In the end you are attempting a partial fix (even though there is no remedy for a DEC at competitive REL because it is a straight up game loss.).

Is “Bounce it?” a unambiguous term?

I totally agree with Alex, his analysis of the situation is really good.

I don't think “Bounce it ? / Yep.” is necessarily misrepresenting th oracle text of Azorius Charm. Of course it depends on the context.
If, for example, Natalie just tapped two mana and put the charm from her hand on the table pointing at Aurelia, Anton would normaly check that she was indeed targetting Aurelia with it. Even if she explicitely said “Azorisu Charm Aurelia”, it might not be out of the ordinary to confirm that they're both talking about the same mode (see the famous "Esper Charm myself“ confusion). There is only one mode of Azorius Charm that targets, and ”bounce", while normally used to describe an Unsummon effect, can reasonably be used to describe Time Ebb effects as well since it's not a game term. If i were in Natalie's place, this is how I'd interpret Anton's question. If Anton had said “back to my hand ?” or something of the sort, this would be different.

Therefore I'm with the people who would just give a Warning for GRV to both players, as Natalie's spell was incorrectly resolved and Anton put a card he owned in the wrong zone.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Does “Bounce it?” necessarily mean that Natalie Anton was asking for oracle text? Furthermore, is answering “yes” to that question necessarily false?

I would argue “yes” to both questions.

For the first part, Anton is clearly unsure of the text on the card - that's why he's asking in the first place (in fact, the question spells it out). And I don't think anyone could successfully argue that he was asking for the printed text (i.e. the German that he can't understand).

For the second question, as long as I've heard the term “Bounce” in my dealings with magic, it has always been used to refer to “return to hand” - a short simple word for a short simple action. So Natalie's “Yes” is clearly false.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Is “Bounce it?” a unambiguous term?

The question is rather clear and unambiguous to me, and to vast majority of the players it is unambiguous also. I can imagine that some new players (or non-English-speakers) simply don't know what “bounce” means. However, I can hardly imagine a player that could know that term, but think that “bounce” = “put-this-card-to-top-of-your-library”.

Also, even if the term is ambiguous and the players had different understandings what ‘bounce’ means, Natalie had a possibility to stop Anton right there; at the exact moment when he put his Aurelia into his hand.

She didn't stop him + the term is rather unambiguous to me. That's pretty much enough for me; however, I agree, that it's probably debatable and you can think otherwise.

Originally posted by Nathanaël François:

Therefore I'm with the people who would just give a Warning for GRV to both players, as Natalie's spell was incorrectly resolved and Anton put a card he owned in the wrong zone.

I have a question here. We can assume that no CPV occured and that communication was legal (although I personally would not do that, as I already said, as I'm on CPV side here).

However, could you explain to me, if we anyway go this route, why do you think we have GRV and not DEC?

GRV, by definition, handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.
Yet, DEC has this definition: 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 Player Communication Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

At the moment before Anton put his Aurelia into his hand, as you state, no other GPE or CPV had been committed. So, as far as I understand the defininition, it's a clear by-the-book case of DEC. And we either issue Anton a GL if we think that his action was too disruptive (omg), or put Aurelia in correct zone + degrade penalty to Warning, because card's identity is known to both players. And issue GPE-GtMGS for Natalie for not noticing that at the moment of error (?).

Edited Alex Zhed (Oct. 19, 2013 03:07:08 AM)

I disagree that “Bounce it” is unambiguous or that the question and/or reply of “Yep” is a violation of derived information.

I have, for as long as I've been playing magic, heard or used the term “bounce” to mean “put something from the battlefield back in a place where it can be recast later” - Griptide is as much a bounce effect as Unsummon. When casting such spells, I've said things like “bounce that to your library”.

Regarding the CPV possibility, since the players are only discussing the implicit instruction of the Oracle text of Azorius Charm, and not the text itself, I don't believe we are violating derived information. Anton appears to remember that Azorius Charm sends his creature somewhere, but can't remember the exact wording, and so makes an assumption in his head and asks for loosely worded confirmation based on that assumption - Natalie misinterprets his assumption and confirms the play, but doesn't notice that there has subsequently been an error.

Player miscommunication happens all the time, but I have a hard time buying confusion over nonspecific slang terms to be a direct violation of the information categories covered under the MTR's communication policy.

So the first point of error then is when Anton puts Aurelia back in his hand, instead of on top of his library; a clear GRV. Natalie fails to prevent this error, and since she controlled the effect which resulted in the GRV, she also receives a GRV. Multiple cards have been drawn and decisions could vary greatly based on the information that has already been seen, so we can't reasonably back up to the point of error - but we have a partial fix which applies here, which is to put Aurelia on top of the library (since it was put into the wrong zone and everyone knew its identity) and play on from the current position.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

So the first point of error then is when Anton puts Aurelia back in his hand, instead of on top of his library; a clear GRV. Natalie fails to prevent this error, and since she controlled the effect which resulted in the GRV, she also receives a GRV.

Yet again I ask why do you think it's a clear GRV.
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand, and that's clearly a DEC definition. Specifically, one of DEC examples states “A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard”. If a player would exile a creature with lethal damage on it instead of putting it into his/her graveyard, it's GRV. If he puts it in his hand, it's DEC. Here a player puts a card into his hand instead of putting it on top of his library. So, why it's a GRV, and not DEC?

So if we go “No-CPV” way, it seems to me that we can't apply double GRV here. It's downgraded DEC, Warning for Anton, and Warning for GRV-FtGMS for Natalie (A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control - Anton did an action, put a card into his hand, and Natalie clearly didn't control that action). And we imply partial fix stated in DEC section, i.e. put Aurelia on top of the library.

And yes, all that sounds pretty weird and is counter-intuitive. That's another reason, why I'd prefer CPV way when solving this situation. So, as far as I understand this situation, it's either CPV or DEC+FtMGS. I'd prefer the first way (and I already explained why); however, I can understand the logic behind second way of solving this situation.

If anybody can explain to me why this situation can be explained as double GRV, please do so, I'm very interested why it can be that way.

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

Yet again I ask why do you think it's a clear GRV.
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand, and that's clearly a DEC definition. Specifically, one of DEC examples states “A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard”. If a player would exile a creature with lethal damage on it instead of putting it into his/her graveyard, it's GRV. If he puts it in his hand, it's DEC. Here a player puts a card into his hand instead of putting it on top of his library. So, why it's a GRV, and not DEC?

From your earlier post:

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

GRV, by definition, handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.
Yet, DEC has this definition: 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 Player Communication Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

Why did you stop quoting the IPG at that sentence? You were just about to get to the part that may shed some light on the question you're asking above. :)

Thanks.


Abe

Edited Abraham Corson (Oct. 19, 2013 03:42:27 AM)

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand, and that's clearly a DEC definition. Specifically, one of DEC examples states “A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard”. If a player would exile a creature with lethal damage on it instead of putting it into his/her graveyard, it's GRV. If he puts it in his hand, it's DEC. Here a player puts a card into his hand instead of putting it on top of his library. So, why it's a GRV, and not DEC?

From section 2.3: GPE-DEC in the IPG: “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.”

I believe Natalie confirmed Anton could illegally put the Aurelia back into his hand when she answered “Yep.” to his question. Therefore it can't be a DEC.

EDIT: I subitted my reply before I saw your post, Abe. I didn't mean to answer your last post :)

Edited Eric Paré (Oct. 19, 2013 03:50:31 AM)

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

However, could you explain to me, if we anyway go this route, why do you think we have GRV and not DEC?

GRV, by definition, handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play Errors.
Yet, DEC has this definition: 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 Player Communication Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

At the moment before Anton put his Aurelia into his hand, as you state, no other GPE or CPV had been committed. So, as far as I understand the defininition, it's a clear by-the-book case of DEC. And we either issue Anton a GL if we think that his action was too disruptive (omg), or put Aurelia in correct zone + degrade penalty to Warning, because card's identity is known to both players. And issue GPE-GtMGS for Natalie for not noticing that at the moment of error (?).

Hmm… I could see the argument for a (downgraded) DEC, given example D in the IPG:

IPG 2.3
D. A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard.

But if we go down that route, we hit a snag with this exception to DEC:

IPG 2.3
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.

Since Anton asked if it “bounced” and Natalia confirmed it, this seems like a case where DEC wouldn't apply.

Regarding the CPV route, I don't believe that Natalia incorrectly represented free or derived information (including the Oracle text of Azorius Charm) incorrectly, given that “bounce” could reasonably be assumed to mean “to your hand” or “to your library” to different players. Both players communicated poorly, but not in a way that made it a Communication Policy Violation.

I still believe that a Game Rule Violation for each of them is the correct answer here - zone changes gone awry are cited as an example of GRV, the IPG notes that GRV is used when players don't follow game rules correctly, and none of the other violations fit.

EDIT: …and both Eric and Abe replied while I was typing this. Sorry, didn't mean to re-state the same thing two people just said!

Edited John Brian McCarthy (Oct. 19, 2013 03:57:39 AM)

Why are we okay saying this isn't a CPV since “bounce” is an ambiguous term, but yet turning around and saying it also isn't DEC because Anton confirmed that he could put the card into his hand? Either “bounce” is unambiguous and thus Natalie committed TE-CPV by incorrectly answering a question about derived information, or it's ambiguous and Anton has not verified he can put the card in his hand (and thus committed DEC).

In my opinion, it is the latter. Everyone knows the identity of the card, so Anton receives a Warning for DEC, and we return the Aurelia to the correct zone. (I don't think it's too much of a stretch here to say that the “correct zone” is his library, not necessarily where it came from.)