Originally posted by Alex Moore:

If I gave this explanation to you, Anniek Van der Peijl, would it be enough serious convincing, or would you DQ me?

I'm not sure I follow the scenario. Are you saying “I'm randomly revealing my hand with a thoughtseize on the stack so that my opponent will think it is resolving but then really it won't be”?

Chris Nowak
I think the DQ was for lying to the judge by saying “I just like revealing my hand” in order to get out of the missed trigger. Presuming he thought she was lying in that scenario.

This. I am convinced Nancy missed the trigger. If she is going to tell me she didn't and doesn't have a convincing explanation, she is lying, and she is out of my tournament.

Edited Anniek Van der Peijl (Oct. 29, 2013 09:44:40 PM)

Sounds like a “gotcha”, and there are no “gotchas” in Magic.

It seems that you are proposing that she is revealing her hand, and when the opponent tries to choose one, she will say “you don't get to choose one to discard- your spell is countered!” That sounds like a stretch.

If the player gives this explanation and seems to sincerely mean it, I'd give her an opportunity to enlighten me because I don't see the logic in her actions. If I get the impression she's concocted that explanation to try to get the trigger, I'd issue her a DQ for lying.

It's not like Nancy flashed her cards in front of Adam's eyes. As you wrote, Anthony, Adam was 5 seconds into his note taking. Might not seem too long, but in fact it's quite some time to browse through the cards. I would have a really hard time believing Nancy if she started talking about bluffing in this situation.

Originally posted by Alex Moore:

If she just reveals her hand whenever, her opponent might not fall for it, because obviously N has a top in play so she's functionally playing with another card in hand. BUT, if she sees the opportunity to reveal with thoughtsieze then pull a last minute trigger acknowledgment, she could be setting up a really really good bluff opportunity.

I go with not missed. The visible game state is not effected by revealing her hand. The game state must go from ‘Thoughtsieze on the stack’ to ‘Thoughtsieze in the yard’ OR they have to begin resolving the visible effect of the spell, which is the removal of a card.

So Nancy is leading Adam to believe that the game is in one state (Thoughtseize mid-resolution) when in fact it is in another state (Thoughtseize on the stack)?

Since “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state” are Free information, doesn't misrepresenting what the current game actions are (i.e what Thoughtseize is doing, what's going on with the hand reveal), constitute a PCV? Revealing your hand in response to a Thoughtseize is a pretty clear statement that the Thoughtseize is in the process of resolving.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Oct. 30, 2013 09:23:36 PM)

PCV requires communication. Taking an action that strongly implies, represents or suggests something is not communication. Communication needs to be verbal or very clear signals that cannot be misconstrued (like holding up three fingers when asked “How many cards in hand?”)

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

PCV requires communication. Taking an action that strongly implies, represents or suggests something is not communication. Communication needs to be verbal or very clear signals that cannot be misconstrued (like holding up three fingers when asked “How many cards in hand?”)

On communication:
We presume that “taking an action that strongly implies… something” to be communication all the time; if a player picks up his creature after combat and moves it to the empty space next to his library, we assume them to be putting it into the graveyard. If their opponent then attempts to cast a sorcery and they say “Nah, we're still in declare blockers, I was just moving my card around on the table to see what you were planning to do postcombat, I Giant Growth my guy”, then we're going to be asking some very pointed questions…

We don't require players to clearly announce every priority pass, or to say, “OK, this is now resolving, now I am revealing my hand as a result of that…” for all spells (thank goodness); one consequence of this though is that we have to assume that when players take certain actions, they are doing them in the “normal” way, and if they are doing otherwise, then we expect them to be explicit and clear. If a player is asked how many cards in hand, and for some odd reason they want to point at the ceiling then, then as they hold up their one finger, they should also say “This is just me pointing at the ceiling, I have 3 cards in hand”. If they just point with one finger at the ceiling and say nothing, then their opponent calls a judge when they notice the 3 card hand, isn't that almost certain to be a DQ?

On the situation in general:
If this isn't a PCV (and while I'd like an answer to my query above, I bow to Riki's superior knowledge of this), and it isn't just straight up cheating and so a DQ anyway, then what is it? Surely intentionally decieving your opponent as to the phase/step we're in, who has priority, or what's on the stack is not acceptable? Deceit about life totals is a DQ offense, surely deceit about what's on the stack and who has priority is equally bad?

The main problem I have with this scenario, is that it seems like most people want to invent a tournament shortcut that doesn't exist.

If the MTR said “If a player takes an action that is otherwise completely legal and allowed but happens to be required by a spell on the stack, that spell is considered to be resolving” it would change everything.

There is no such shortcut. The IPG (at first glance) seems pretty clear that the trigger isn't missed until the trigger would have an effect on the visible game state.

Individuals in my area, seem to be ok with player N revealing his hand and saying clearly “chalice trigger on the stack” means the trigger isn't missed, but if he doesn't say anything while revealing his hand then they would rule the trigger missed. I have trouble finding this backed up by policy. The rules treat both of these examples as identical until the point where you take a visible game action. Player N never said he passed priority back after Thoughtsieze was put on the stack… all he did was reveal his hand, which is totally allowed by the rules.

I think this is one of those hypotheticals that will ultimately depend on the feeling and the communications that were made at the actual event. I would never fault a judge for ruling that the trigger was missed, based on what they saw and heard at the event, nor would I necessarily call a judge wrong for allowing the trigger to not be missed. It sort of depends on exactly what happened in person.

I think that each of us, when reading the hypothetical, may invent slightly different contexts and opinions based on our own experiences. As such, we may just simply all be correct. In Anthony's specific example in the OP, I'd probably agree with most people that the trigger has been missed, but I don't believe that ruling is backed up by written policy. Its just a judgement call.

-Alex Moore

Edited Alex Moore (Nov. 4, 2013 09:36:41 PM)