I'm gonna try to explain a situation that I had observed and was curious to what others may have done. This is my first post so bare with me please :).

John and Joe are playing a round of pauper at their local venue. It is game 3 and they both have no cards in hand. John is at 4 life with no creatures and Joe is at 3 life with a 2/2. On Joe's turn he draws Sign in Blood. He looks at his opponent and reveals sign in blood never paying for it. His opponent draws 2 cards and one is Lightning Bolt. He reveals Lightning Bolt to his opponent. They pack up their cards and go to fill out the slip. Joe assumes he would have swung with the 2/2 and sign in blooded his opponent for win. John assume he sign in blooded in precombat and got to bolt the opponent for win. By the time the judge arrives there is no cards on the table. How would you determine the winner.

To try and clarify the situation, both players packed up their cards and went to fill the slip. At this point (probably because it was 1-1 before this game “ended”) an argument came out about who had actually won the game/conceded. Is this the correct interpretation?

Edited Peter Richmond (May 18, 2014 04:10:38 PM)

Yes, everything packed it was 1-1 game 3. One player assumed they would play the logical path by attacking then casting and they were just looking at their next couple draws the other player assumed they were casting it then revealed win on their side. They both basically did shortcuts to show I have win and assumed the other conceded.

Okay. First off, we want to avoid making any decision ourselves about what “would have” happened. We shouldn't try to assume who should have won. We have a scenario where no player has conceded (alternatively, you could say that there's an implied double concession, but the result is the same). That said, let's look at the options we have here, assuming that their stories check out. (When I say their stories check out, we often call this “investigation.” Simply put, it's making sure that what they've told you is what actually happened. Humans have a tendency to remember what is convenient for us).

First, try to see if you can get the players to agree on a concession. Often times, by having the players talk it out, they can come to an agreement on what should have happened. While this may not work in tournament with higher prize payouts or other rewards, I find that this option is usually the best in a scenario like this.

However, if that fails, then our other solution is to call the game a draw and have them play another game (assuming time hasn't been called for the round). Since the game had ended with no declared winner, this is the next best option. The players may not appreciate this option, since they both believed they had won, so take this time to educate them about being clearer in their communication.

Edited Peter Richmond (May 18, 2014 04:28:36 PM)

There is also the third solution - the hardest one, but probably the best
one (provided that the players don't come to an agreement) - to actually
make a ruling and decide who won the game.

Restarting the game just because the players don't agree who the winner is,
is not a good ruling. You are a judge and it is your duty to settle
disagreements. So, you listen to both players' versions, ask spectators
about what they see and other people about the players' habbits (like
whether they usually reveal cards from hand in order to get a concession)
and decide which version is more probable and then you declare winner
accordingly.


2014-05-18 23:28 GMT+02:00 Peter Richmond <

Originally posted by Joshua Hudson:

" On Joe's turn he draws Sign in Blood. He looks at his opponent and reveals sign in blood never paying for it. His opponent draws 2 cards"

Wouldn't this be one of the main problems? Joe never actually CAST Sign in Blood. His opponent then drew cards, and attempted to play a Lightning Bolt that shouldn't have been in his hand. That's drawing extra cards, from what I can understand.

Re. ‘Joe never actually CAST Sign in Blood.’ - I recently had this problem at a GP where a player revealed a remand from his hand in response to an opponent's spell. The opponent put the spell in his graveyard, was corrected by a judge that it should have gone to hand, and then took another action to win the game. At this point, the remand player was saying he hadn't cast the Remand. I ruled that it had been cast - this is a game of communication; if you communicate in such a way that the other participants understand something and make no attempts to clarify immediately while they progress the game, I think that you have done that thing. In this case, he has cast Sign in Blood.

The interesting point to me is that there is nothing mentioned in the situation to say that he actually had attacked - just that he took it for granted that it was obvious that he would and then cast the spell after. So to me, it sounds likely that lightning bolt guy has won, as sign in blood guy has successfully communicated something totally different to what he has in mind and has not attempted to clarify until it cost him.

Hello.
Joshua, please, use names starting with A for active player (Adam for example) and names starting with N for no
active player (Norman for example). It makes easier to have in mind who is taking each action.
Cheers,
Javier.

I would say the Lightning Bolt wins, too.
In that case it is the question who was target of sign in blood when cast precombat.
So, A did not draw the cards for targetting himself, N draws the cards and A did not interrupt him for drawing (That would be DEC).
So I say after resolving, N is at 2 Life and two cards, one of them lightning bolt.

When he had exept for lands no other permanents, i guess he have had untapped lands to play the bolt to A to win the match.

Edit: Oops, didn't see that this is regular…

Edited Casey Primm (May 19, 2014 10:04:09 AM)

assumes he would have swung with the 2/2

…ah, but he didn't do that, did he?

As related here, it seems likely that the player who actually did take the action that wins the game - i.e., Lightning Bolt for lethal - should win that game, and not the player who assumes he WOULD HAVE won the game.

To be fair, he's correct, he WOULD HAVE won the game if he WOULD HAVE actually done what he intended. Next time, I bet he carries through his whole plan…

d:^D

The only way I think this could be ruled in favor of AP is if he'd said “Sign in Blood for lethal after combat?”.
If NAP thinks he won this one, it is clear AP didn't say something like that…

I feel like the original question “How would you determine a winner?” is sending us down the wrong path. Why should we determine a winner at all?

Both players have contributed to a problematic situation via their lack of clear communication, it's impossible for us to rewind, and there is (as far as I am aware) no policy support for retroactively determining who “would have won” when a game was not properly concluded. Indeed, letting judges make such determinations seems like a recipe for inconsistency and upset players.

The game ended without a winner (to be precise, the players destroyed the gamestate before the game came to an actual end as clearly neither player won per the rules and there was no concession from either side). If time remains in the round they can start another game (being clear that this is not a new game to “replace” the previous one, but simply another game as no player has yet won 2). If there is not time in the round, then the result as we have it now (1-1, or perhaps 1-1-1 depending on how you look at the fate of the unended game) stands. One of the players might choose to actually concede the match at that point, but it's unreasonable and awkward to prompt the players to discuss conceding to each other.

Ruling this way doesn't give us a “winner” in any sense, but it's clear and fair, and while neither player will be exactly happy, they're also not going to be angry about how the judge screwed them over. It also means that neither player will make such a mistake again…

I agree with Scott and Kim, if both players confirm that no attack took place, then it's the Lightning Bolt player that won. Players need to communicate their actions not just assume that there was combat and it resolved. It seems to me the active player made a huge mistake in drawing a card knowing that's the win, forgetting to attack and just assuming that they had attacked, casts the spell and opens him/herself up to the lightning bolt.

Strange thing here is that the AP never cast Sign in Blood. He just revealed it. He didn't announce it, he didn't pay for it, he didn't put it in his graveyard… He simply showed it to his opponent.

The entire game is beyond the point of recovery though. I'd probably Rule that the NAP wins and inform the AP that this is a game where communication is important and by failing to communicate the chance for errors like this increases. There are two perfectly legal sequences of play in this case. One results in him winning, the other results in him losing. By not communicating he forces assumptions to be made and in this case the assumption is a premature(pre-combat) casting of Sign in Blood since that is what appeared to be indicated.