Good morning (or afternoon or evening) judges! It's just us loveable scamps from the Knowledge Pool, here to give you the scuttlebutt on our latest scenario. It's Silver this week, which means we'd like L1s and judge candidates to have the first crack at it. L2+ can join in on Friday. So…

Andy and Nichole are playing in a Modern GPT. During his second main phase, Andy attempts to play a land for the turn. Nichole stops him, telling him that he's already played a land for the turn. Andy says “Oops!” Then he puts the land back in hand and passes the turn.

Nichole untaps, draws, plays a land and casts Ronom Unicorn. Andy pauses for a second then says, “Hey. I went first, and now you have more lands in play than me. I actually didn't play a land last turn.”

“Huh? … Whoa. You're totally right.”

“Judge!”

What do you do?


http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1072

This looks like a pretty straightforward Communication Policy Violation from Nichole because she said something wrong about a free information (quite the opposite of example B in the IPG), which deserves a penalty of Warning.

From the moment Nichole said that, the only game actions were that she drew once, and played two permanents, therefore I think "the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game" so I ask both players to pause their match while I go to the Head Judge and asks him for permission to back up. If he disagrees, the game continues. If he agrees, Nichole takes her Ronom Unicorn and the land she played this turn back in her hand, then I take a random card from her hand and put it on top of her library to undo her draw, then Nichole taps whatever permanents she controls that were tapped when her turn begins, and at last the game goes back to Andy's second main phase.

I remind Nichole to be more careful and I give her a Warning for TE-CPV.

P.S. Joshua, the link towards The Knowledge Pool does not work yet.

Edited Loïc Hervier (May 28, 2014 09:44:06 AM)

Is it PCV?

“You already played a land for turn” is information about a past game action that still affects the game state. This is an example of Free information. Nichole has represented free information incorrectly by stating that Andy has already played his land for turn.

“First of all, I wish you had called me when the first confusion happened. This would be a lot easier to fix if we had stopped and figured out the game state last turn, instead of trying to figure out what happened after the fact.” We investigate to ensure that Andy's statement is correct - is either player forgetting about a missed land drop? Assuming not, Nichole will be issued a Warning for Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation for failing to represent free information correctly. Andy has committed no infraction. Since less than one turn has passed, I am willing to back this up. Nichole's Land an Unicorn will be returned to her hand, lands will be untapped for the unicorn, a random card from her hand will be placed on top of her deck, and anything that untapped during her untap step will be tapped. Andy will receive priority in his second main phase, and will be allowed to play his land.

Nichole, by mistakenly saying that Andy had already played his land for turn, she committed a TE - CPV. Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly. Free information includes: Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state. (MTR 4.1) Like Loïc stated, this is similar to ex. B of TE - CPV (IPG 3.7), but reversed. The fix for this is to back up the game to the point of the incorrect information. With HJ approval, we rewind all game actions, from casting the Unicorn back to Andy attempting to play his land. The game continues from that point.

We issue Nichole a Warning, remind her to pay closer attention to the game state, and issue a time extension for how much time we used.

First, I would verify that their were no additional land drops caused by earlier player actions that would bring the game into this state. Specifically, in modern the most common would be Path to Exile.

If there were no external actions taken by players that would cause a land discrepancy shown here. It becomes a Communication Policy Violation to Nichole, explaining that she misrepresented free information. The result would be a warning, with the option to reverse the game state. I would approach the headjudge, and if granted permission to reverse the game state would take the following actions in this order:
Ronom Unicorn would be returned to Nicholes hand
The land played by Nichole for the turn would be returned to hand
A random card would be placed from her hand on top of her library
Her permanents that untapped this turn would be tapped again
Move back to Andy's second main phase, he is given priority

Issue a time extension for the elapsed time.

Edited Lydia Deese (May 28, 2014 12:47:04 PM)

Before reading other responses:

While “it's never CPV” usually applies, this one pretty much looks like a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation for Nichole. Whether Andy has played a land this turn is a past action that still affects the game state, and is thus free information. Nichole represented this incorrectly. In fact, this is nearly identical to the second example in the IPG for CPV. While Andy was also mistaken about the land for the turn, he did not represent information incorrectly. CPV is not a GRV, so Andy has not committed Failure to Maintain Game State.

Nichole gets a warning for TE-CPV. This is a simple situation, so we can safely rewind to Andy's second main phase, give him the option of playing a land, and continue the game.

It would be important to do some initial investigation and make sure Nichole's statement was an honest mistake, and not an attempt to gain advantage. Given the text of the scenario, this is likely the case.

After reading other responses:

It seems CPV is agreed on. Other responders also pointed out the necessity of investigating and confirming that Andy actually did miss a land drop, and also the details of the rewind.

Same as above. BUT
I would ask Nichole what was the exact phrase she used when she informed Andy of the possible extra land. If it was a question such as “Didn't you play a land during the first main phase?” or “is that not your second land drop?” Neither phrase misrepresents information, its just a question. I would then tell Andy that it is up to him to remember his land drops and that he should have called a judge if there was a discrepancy (or at least call a judge on himself when he thought he played an extra land - GPE). Play on.

I know this seems feel bad, but that would be how I approach it. It is competitive REL, I expect players to keep track of things like land drops.

Before reading other responses: this seems like a clear cut CPV. Nicole offered incorrect information regarding free information: aka details about past game actions which affect the game state. I would ask a few questions regarding the confusion and then ask the head judge about backing the game up. I don't think it would be overly complicated to do so. I would issue Nichole a warning. I would also remind them that it is best to get a judge involved at the earliest sign of a problem. In this case, when Nichole first thought Andy was trying to play an extra land.

After reading other responses: looks like I'm part of the general consensus. I did miss double checking to see if Nichole or Andy had played any spells which allowed Nichole an extra land drop. That is potentially important.

Edited Darrin Sisneros (May 28, 2014 10:15:44 PM)

I read a few of the posts on page 1 before posting:

Seems like TE-CPV to me. N misrepresented free information by stating that A had played his land. No rewind, no additional remedy. If A asks for more information as to why his opponent “lying” only yields a Warning, or A appeals and I'm the HJ, I'd mention to A that it's not wholly his opponent's responsibility to track his land drops, and he is responsible for knowing this as well, and hence missing his land drop in this case was partly his own fault.

In the normal course of events, though, I would simply issue TE-CPV and walk away without (much, beyond the expected) further explanation.

First things first, I'd check to see if there was any reason for N to have more lands than A. Maybe he ramped. Maybe A path'd one of his dudes. Maybe A's missed a land drop. After a careful investigation, checking graveyards, talking to players, etc., and determining that yes, A hadn't dropped a land for the turn, I'd rule the following:

So, this seems to be a TE-CPV, which is a warning for N, no penalty for A. Free information is being mis-represented. The IPG states that we rewind to the point of incorrect information, so we execute a rewind. If the HJ has requested that rewinds go through him, I'd explain everything to the players, hand out the warning, then explain I need to get the HJ to fully execute the fix, given that it's not a short rewind (Unlike, say, doomblading a black creature, which I'm comfortable rewinding). For the rewind, I'd first return the unicorn to hand, then untap the lands, return a card at random from N's hand to the top of his deck, determine which permanents had been tapped at the start of his turn, tap those, determine if A had pitched any cards EOT, then finish at A's post-combat main phase. I'd remind both players to play more carefully.

Edit: I'd also check to see if any player had lost life outside of combat, IE, if N had tapped a mana confluence for example. This should be a relatively straightforward check of graveyards and battlefield.

Now, if I determined that A HAD dropped a land that turn… no problem, play on. The scenario stated that N snapped said that A was right, but it is possible that N is mis-remembering, and some investigation will prompt their memory.

Edited Olivier Jansen (May 29, 2014 08:33:27 AM)

In response to Lyle's elaboration, I would suggest that if there is
contention that N was “lying,” I would remind A that N can be mistaken
without deliberately lying about it. Players can be wrong, and while it is
very important that they accurately communicate free information (hence the
infraction and Warning), there is no need to heap more punishment upon them
for that. If I felt N was deliberately misrepresenting free information,
or if I felt N was lying to me about the situation, our conversation would
be a lot different.

Otherwise, I agree with everyone else about this. TE-CPV, Warning, request
a backup.

Given the information that we had, I think it's pretty clear that Nichole gets a warning for a CPV. Of course, there are other possibilities given some other assumptions from further investigation that other users have suggested (such as possibly cheating (fraud), or double checking to make sure that the players were correct in assuming that no land had been played). Again, given what we know, I don't think there's much else to it. A rewind is the best remedy here. Fortunately, it appears a rewind won't change a whole lot of decisions since not a lot has passed since the CPV.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I read a few of the posts on page 1 before posting:

Seems like TE-CPV to me. N misrepresented free information by stating that A had played his land. No rewind, no additional remedy. If A asks for more information as to why his opponent “lying” only yields a Warning, or A appeals and I'm the HJ, I'd mention to A that it's not wholly his opponent's responsibility to track his land drops, and he is responsible for knowing this as well, and hence missing his land drop in this case was partly his own fault.

In the normal course of events, though, I would simply issue TE-CPV and walk away without (much, beyond the expected) further explanation.

Why would you not rewind to the point of error?

Thanks to everyone who took part in this week's discussion.

As many may have pointed out, this is a Communication Policy Violation.
Lets take a look at the following documents:-

Infraction Procedure Guide 3.7

A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules (MTR).

Additional Remedy
If the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the incorrect information. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

MTR 4.1
Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. Free information includes:

• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.

The following rules govern player communication:

• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.

Whether a player has played a land is free information, and Nichole has misrepresented that information unintentionally, so she gets a CPV Warning.

Now, let's consider the fix. The Knowledge Pool Team are of the opinion that little enough has happened that the situation is simple enough to safely back up with minimal disruption to the game.

We rewind to Andy's second main phase by returning Ronom Unicorn to Nichole's hand, putting a random card back on top of her library, and tapping any lands that were tapped on the previous turn. Andy may now play his land, and the players continue the game from that point.