Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

Plus if you let ruling depend on what's in the players hand, you're effectively revealing private information. “What, no game loss? That means he has no counter and I'm free to do what I want this turn!”

Just wanted to note that I wouldn't feel bad about this result, since the player has chosen to take a rules lawyering approach. Having his hand turn transparent seems like sweet justice—merely a byproduct of an impartial ruling.

Also, hidden information can easily be revealed in a way that demands no penalty, yet benefits one player (e.g. A player flashes back Thoughtseize, which should have been exiled already.) This is just one of those things that happens.

Originally posted by David Poon:

Just wanted to note that I wouldn't feel bad about this result, since the player has chosen to take a rules lawyering approach. Having his hand turn transparent seems like sweet justice—merely a byproduct of an impartial ruling.

Also, hidden information can easily be revealed in a way that demands no penalty, yet benefits one player (e.g. A player flashes back Thoughtseize, which should have been exiled already.) This is just one of those things that happens.

A couple of comments on this one:

1. The Thoughtseize example is a little different to the situation being discussed here. There, the players themselves reveal the information. In the situation being discussed, the judge reveals the information in the course of making a fix dependent on what is in one player's hand. There is a world of difference between these two things.

2. ‘Justice’ is a pretty dangerous path to tread, and normally completely disconnected from an impartial ruling. Justice implies punishing someone for a misdeed. As Magic judges, this is not what we do: we repair situations as best as we can, without trying to correct any kind of moral balance as implied by the concept of ‘justice’.

Or, in short, I am very much not on board with tailoring your fix to what the player has in hand. It is far away from our role to provide that kind of information to the opponent - however we may feel about the actions of the player in question.

I'm with Emilien on this one. Adam saw a tapped out opponent and figured he could shortcut past the whole ‘does this resolve’ thing, which is very reasonable and which I don't want to punish. Naomi wants to interrupt this shortcut, which is usually also reasonable and allowed by the MTR. The only way we can allow her to do this is by somehow undoing the card already drawn, and I suggest picking a random one to mimic the GRV fix (rewinding things to allow for interruption of shortcuts is not covered in any document as far as I can tell so this bit is just judgement on my part). If Naomi doesn't actually HAVE a response I don't want to give this info to Adam by applying a different fix of not rewinding and just continuing the brainstorm, so I'm putting a card on top either way. Naomi is being a little unsporting by a) demanding a game loss and b) demanding to interrupt a shortcut and then not actually doing it.

My verdict: no infraction, no penalty. Put card back and allow to interrupt, stern lecture for Naomi about causing other people headaches.

So would a USC - Minor for Naomi here unreasonable? I feel that demanding a game loss of the opponent could certainly be seen as affecting “the comfort level around the individual” and one of the examples “A player inappropriately demands a judge that her opponent receive a penalty” is almost perfect for this. i would believe that it is well within the judges rights to give Naomi a USC - Minor for such behavior, but maybe I'm missing that other people aren't

In my opinion the statement ‘Judge, my opponent drew an extra card, that’s a Game Loss (for drawing extra cards(, right?))' doesn't warrant USC minor - it's an honest question, or a statement of that players best knowledge.
I do give USC Minor if I made my ruling - which would be like Anniek's unless theres some more ‘had to be there’ stuff going on - and THEN the player demands ‘But he should get a gameloss for that, not only a warning/caution’, or whatever similar.

If I'm responding to this judge call and that's the only information I have, it looks like the players want to be at two different points of the game. Adam is in the middle of resolving his brainstorm since he didn't see blue on the Naomi's side of the board and naomi wanting to have a chance to respond to the brainstorm. Best fix is to get to a moment on the game where they both will be at the same point which is when the brainstorm is on the stack. We rewind back to that point by putting a random card back on board and reminding adam to play a bit slower to confirm shortcuts. No infraction no penalty. 


Now if naomi still insists that it should be a penalty, I'll look into USC minor.

As has been asked in other points of the thread… what is the policy justification for doing that?

It seems to be a reasonable way to handle it, but I'm not seeing something in policy that actually supports that. (Or is it a deviation?)

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

As has been asked in other points of the thread… what is the policy justification for doing that?

It seems to be a reasonable way to handle it, but I'm not seeing something in policy that actually supports that. (Or is it a deviation?)

I believe Scott mentioned the following…

Scott Marshall, June 25, 2014 11:22:31 AM
I think the first step I'd take is to ask Naomi - probably away from the table - what her response is going to be. If she doesn't actually have one, I'd tell her about MTR 4.2, and that I feel she's very close to crossing the line into Unsporting Conduct - specifically, the example that others have mentioned (“inappropriately demands … a penalty”).

Scott Marshall, June 25, 2014 03:26:53 PM
Naomi says she wants to interrupt the proposed shortcut; we allow that.

…and as covered in MTR 4.2 itself…

A tournament shortcut is an action taken by players to skip parts of the technical play sequence without explicitly announcing them. Tournament shortcuts are essential for the smooth play of a game, as they allow players to play in a clear fashion without getting bogged down in the minutia of the rules. 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.

…so it seems clear that if Adam cast and resolved Brainstorm, he presumed that Naomi had no possible response here; casting and resolving a spell without explicitly passing priority is as much a shortcut as any, even if not officially documented. Certainly it would have been far better for Adam to confirm the resolution of the spell before drawing cards, but it seems unreasonable to get caught in the technicalities here. Afterall, did Naomi put Tarmogoyf directly onto the battlefield after casting it? Or did she confirm everything as well?

Honestly, this treats the situation in as organic a way as possible, without getting caught up in technicalities, and following the policy in MTR 4.2 in a pretty reasonable fashion. And I would not see this any different were it the declaration of attackers versus the “rushed” resolution of a spell. That there's a card draw involved, IMO, is a red herring here.