Originally posted by James Dowling:

I feel I disagree here. AP has been clear in his intentions here (especially assuming he can tell you what he wants to do in BOC), and taking the opportunity to make the optimal play away from him EVEN WHEN he has made all the correct moves to do what he would like to do, because of a tournament shortcut that he is trying to avoid, seems really silly.
The statement he has made, by the book, does what he wants it to do. Why do we take that away from him?

1. As Scott just said, we do not want to allow any verbal trickery.
2. The way to prevent such trickery is to set up shortcut rules.
3. Those shortcut rules unfortunately have some collateral damage, including taking the above away from him.
4. What we take away from him is not very important in practice so it's an acceptable loss.

With what part do you disagree with exactly?

Originally posted by James Dowling:

I feel I disagree here. AP has been clear in his intentions here (especially assuming he can tell you what he wants to do in BOC), and taking the opportunity to make the optimal play away from him EVEN WHEN he has made all the correct moves to do what he would like to do, because of a tournament shortcut that he is trying to avoid, seems really silly.
The statement he has made, by the book, does what he wants it to do. Why do we take that away from him?

That's not a reasonable characterization of what is going on here. Nothing about Player A saying “I wish to enter my beginning of combat step” is about Player A making any kind of “optimal play”. In fact, Player A isn't making any kind of play at all via the use of that phrase.

What Player A is trying to do is create a window to get Player B to make the “wrong play”, casting Cryptic Command in the precombat main phase rather than the beginning of combat step, so that Player A can exploit that window to cast Goblin Guide. This is about creating the opportunity for a play, via some very careful language. It dovetails into some careful understanding about the turn structure and clever phrasing, but ultimately it's about trying to construct a scenario in which Player A is getting Player B to cast something at the wrong time.

Player A already controls a lot of the pacing of the turn by virtue of being the active player. Player B is far more reactive by virtue of being the nonactive player, and doesn't have nearly that level of control with the pacing of the turn. The shortcut policy doesn't change this dynamic, and certainly doesn't offer either player an advantage by controlling this pacing. (In fact, we make certain in policy that Player B can't “take control” of the turn by artificially advancing it beyond the pace that Player A is comfortable with.) Player A can no more dictate when Player B is acting, than Player B can dictate when Player A is acting.

General communication between players is challenging enough at times. Is “superior communication skills” something that we want to foster at events? Especially given the language barriers that can exist between players (even just between regional variations on language and slang)?

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Nothing about Player A saying “I wish to enter my beginning of combat step” is about Player A making any kind of “optimal play”. In fact, Player A isn't making any kind of play at all via the use of that phrase.

Well I do agree with the others that there are scenarios where it is the optimal play with cards like Cauldron Dance so we aren't taking away nothing but those scenarios are corners of corner cases.

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 3, 2015 12:41:27 AM)

Judge: “It seems there is a disagreement over the exact point in the turn in which NAP is taking his action. NAP, when did you act?”

NAP: “In the beginning of combat step.”

Judge: “AP, you passed priority in your main phase. Was there anything you wanted to do before passing priority in beginning of combat?”

If yes: rewind to last point of agreement (GG to hand, CC to hand, mana untapped, AP has priority in beginning of combat step).
If no: explain to AP that such verbal trickery is not acceptable. Rewind GG, CC has resolved, AP has priority in beginning of combat step.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

The shortcuts in the MTR are there for a very good reason, please don't ignore them.

Then why do we constantly ignore them, especially in the situation of “cast burning wish… crack LED” to mean that he's retaining priority, when the MTR says you must explicitly state you're holding priority? We ignore MTR rules all the time when we feel it's correct.

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

Then why do we constantly ignore them, especially in the situation of “cast burning wish… crack LED” to mean that he's retaining priority, when the MTR says you must explicitly state you're holding priority? We ignore MTR rules all the time when we feel it's correct.

We don't ignore them, rather we don't apply policy to situations where the policy simply doesn't apply. This could be a situation where it is generally clear what the player is actually doing, such as with your scenario, and the general shortcut doesn't apply. And, if we're not clear, we ask questions to ensure that we understand the player's intent.

The scenario as originally proposed isn't about that at all. Hence my point about “reasonable characterization of what is going on here”. As Toby breaks apart my wording, there are scenarios where the standard shortcut may not apply; those are possible, given the proper context. This scenario, as proposed by the OP, isn't one of them.

I keep seeing cauldron dance referenced. Why is a corner case relevant here? Yes. There are scenarios where a general rule doesn't fit. If that applies, it's a different scenario than the one being discussed here. If AP tec edged NAP's fourth mana source main phase, it would be a different scenario. None of these things are true here. AP tried to trick NAP into a misplay.

As Scott so elegantly said: No.

Story time.

Way back - I mean, WAY back - savvy players would try something like this:
AP: “Attack?”
NAP: "Icy Manipulator your Goblin Ski Patrol“…
AP: ”OK, cast Ball Lightning, attack for 6!!!" <insert evil cackle>
(Those cards were not only legal, but common in Standard - well, maybe not the skiing Gobbo - that's how long ago I set the Wayback machine…)

That's (a) exactly the scenario we wanted to address with the shortcut we're discussing, and (b) the same attempt at verbal trickery - only the cards and (careful wording) have changed.

Please don't look for ways to undermine all the hard work we put into preventing exactly that.

d:^D

P.S. - I am now rummaging through my Bag of Holding, to find the wooden stake that will finally kil…err, end this thread.

Thank you all guys for your answers ^___^

Perhaps it would be helpful if we discuss what statements from AP would result in us ruling in their favor?

“Pass priority in my main phase”
“I'd like to move to me having priority in my Beginning of Combat Step. Okay?”
“I'd like to exit my first main phase, okay?”

I'm interested in what people think about these. I'm not looking for 100% agreement, or an absolute line on one side we rule for AP, the other side for NAP. Just a general feel. It is very rare for it to be strategically useful to AP, but I still think we need to account for some method to achieve this (without telegraphing what is intended to be cast/activated. “In my BOC cast <x>” is too strict).

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

Perhaps it would be helpful if we discuss what statements from AP would result in us ruling in their favor?

Not to be overly harsh, but it would not really be helpful to discuss such statements as there are are infinitely many ways to state things. Such is the nature of natural language imprecise and I am sure that getting into the minutia of that (as others have already stated on this thread) is necessarily worthwhile or worth updating policy for. Again as others have said it should not be the case that I can craft better linguistic skills than you allowing me to play better (especially for those who enter into a situation where they are playing in a foreign land). That is a place we do not want to go.

Edited Nicola DiPasquale (Jan. 3, 2015 05:32:09 AM)

I have, a few times in my judging career, had the following happen:
I take a call where AP said “Combat Phase”, NAP did something, AP wants to play a haste creature. I've said AP couldn't, explained the shortcut, explained some of the reasoning behind why the tournament policy is as it is. AP then asks me what they can say to achieve this. My answer has usually included “you have to be SUPER-explicit”.

Should I have instead said “There's no way. Tournament policy forbids that completely-legal-by-CR play”?

We could alternatively tell such a player that it's all dependent on their opponent understanding. If you haven't sufficiently explicitly explained what you're trying to do, and hence your opponent doesn't understand, then by definition you can't do it. But this seems a very high hurdle, higher than I think we typically require. A language issue has been mentioned, but there's also a high chance of a rules knowledge issue. Many players even at GPs don't truly understand priority. So we tell AP “because your opponent doesn't understand priority, you can't do <x>”?

This thread was focused on one specific example of something that might be said. I understand that we want to discourage an attempt at a return to the old days that Scott mentioned. I understand wanting to say that this specific example isn't sufficient. I am struggling at the next step though.

AP controls the flow of the turn, and that gives them great power. And, as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. That means, among other things, that you are responsible for it being clear where something (including an opponent's spell) is happening, and no, that doesn't mean you get to decide. We will side with the opponent in cases of ambiguity because they need that protection.

It also means AP generally has to act first, by saying what it is they want to do. NAP gets to react to that. If you want to do something, say when and where. Don't announce you're doing nothing in the hopes that you can make them act first, then expect to grab priority again if they don't.

NAP doesn't want to play anything in your main phase. Really, they don't. Odds are that if they're doing so, it's because they're being tricked or because you have Goblin Rabblemaster in play and they need to kill it. (Ironic that there's one of the very few exceptions in Standard right now, but, really, is “Rabblemaster trigger?” “Hang on, I want to kill it in your main phase” so hard? Or, if you say “begin combat” and they kill it, it's not so unreasonable to ask when they're doing it. See paragraph 1.)

There is zero tolerance for the kind of verbal trickery attempt posed in the initial question, to the point where if it means you have to give away a little information in weird corner cases (yay, Cauldron Dance), that's an acceptable sacrifice to make it clear that Cryptic-Command-baiting is not a recognized form of mental sport. Don't be that player, don't encourage that player.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

Should I have instead said “There's no way. Tournament policy forbids that completely-legal-by-CR play”?
….
I am struggling at the next step though.

I think the simplest answer is just “There is no way to trick your opponent like that.” This is sort of like the situation where you may have to give away the existence of a trigger to discover if it has been missed. While it's not the most perfectly ideal solution, it's far better than the alternative.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

I have, a few times in my judging career, had the following happen:
I take a call where AP said “Combat Phase”, NAP did something, AP wants to play a haste creature. I've said AP couldn't, explained the shortcut, explained some of the reasoning behind why the tournament policy is as it is. AP then asks me what they can say to achieve this. My answer has usually included “you have to be SUPER-explicit”.

Should I have instead said “There's no way. Tournament policy forbids that completely-legal-by-CR play”?

When players ask what they need to say in order to avoid the shortcut, what they're really asking is “What secret combination of words can I use to legally trick my opponent into doing things in my main phase when they meant to act in beginning of combat?” And our answer to that question should absolutely be “There is none. You cannot trick your opponent like that.”

In the rare cases where the active player has something they want to do in the Beginning of Combat step, “I do X in my beginning of combat step” is almost always sufficient–the nonactive player almost never has any reason to want to act in the main phase anyway, so the AP isn't giving up any real advantage by jumping ahead.

In the even rarer cases where the AP has something to do and the NAP has reasons to act in the main phase, and so for some strategic reason the AP doesn't wish the NAP to know what it is they have planned, I'd suggest the AP call over a judge to oversee them explaining to their opponent exactly how and why they want to deviate from the shortcut.