Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Was there a definite answer to the “Vendillion Clique, write your hand, target myself” scenario?

I can't find an answer, but there are some things we should be able to answer fairly easily. First, it depends on what actually happens / what's actually said. The most likely variations are:

1)
AP: Cast Vendilion Clique
NAP: *Reveals hand*
AP: *Writes down hand*
AP: Ok, does Vendilion Clique resolve? // Ok, Vendilion Clique resolves and I target myself.

2)
AP: Cast Vendilion Clique
NAP: OK
AP: Trigger
NAP: *Reveals hand*
AP: *Writes down hand*
AP: Ok, target myself.

In 1) we have an example of what Scott described - NAP has assumed a future gamestate and skipped forward to that point without seeking any confirmation from AP. The mistake is entirely NAP's, not AP's. It would be “sporting” of AP to point out the mistake and not write down the hand, but the rules don't oblige AP to do that. No infraction.

2) is more problematic because saying just the word “trigger” implies that the player is putting the trigger on the stack without selecting a target, which is a GRV. It's also not any kind of statement about the future - AP is putting the trigger on the stack now - so in that respect it's very different from the other things we've talked about here.

Edited Alex Roebuck (Dec. 23, 2014 05:54:52 PM)

For some reason, the scenario I am always told about is:
AP: cast Vendillion Clique
NAP: Ok / Resolves
*AP puts Clique on the battlefield*
*Nothing is said*
*After a while, NAP shows his hand*
*AP writes down the hand*
AP: Target myself.

That's the situation in which I thought my “Choose your DQ” discussion was appropriate.

Edited Florian Horn (Dec. 23, 2014 07:02:00 PM)

The scenario you describe, “3),” is obviously a worse example, but I think it's still fundamentally the same concept as scenario 1). NAP has made a faulty assumption and acted on that assumption, without seeking any clarification from AP. That might be what AP was hoping for, and it might feel really unfair to us, but that still doesn't mean AP has actually committed an infraction.

In general I think you should place less value on the pause in communication. (Ignoring Slow Play/Stalling) Seconds ticking on the clock, “real time,” is much less important than game actions and communication, “game time,” when it comes to handling triggered abilities. In both 1) and 3) no game-time has passed, so the passage of real-time should not cause us to make a significantly different ruling.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Another way to put it: shortcuts are an agreement to skip unnecessary steps, to an agreed-upon future point; bluffs are usually a prediction of a future game-state (that might actually be impossible).

I am still not very sure of the difference. Can I use the following criterion?
“If the legality of a sequence of actions depends on any private information, it cannot be a shortcut, but only a prediction of a future state. A player describing such a sequence of actions is not bound to follow it, even if he or she can”.

Alex Roebuck
That might be what AP was hoping for, and it might feel really unfair to us, but that still doesn't mean AP has actually committed an infraction.

I can live with that if it is policy, but that is really something I don't like.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I can live with that if it is policy, but that is really something I don't like.

Agreed x1000

For what it's worth - we had the “Vendilion Clique” discussion on the UK judge forum some time ago and initially I felt the same way you did. Unfortunately policy just doesn't support that position :/

Florian, I think I see the source of your confusion - and I'll agree, shortcuts and bluffs are similar, even intertwined. But bluffs include suggestion of a possibility that may never occur; shortcuts simply say "let's skip to here".

Perhaps it's easier to distinguish if you think about the opponent's options, when given a shortcut vs. a bluff.

• For a shortcut, the opponent can accept the “destination” (and all implied priority passes), or propose a different “destination”. This is usually seen with AP proposing 1,000,000,000,000,000 iterations of something, where the opponent may want to accept only the first 10, then take an action, or allow all of them, or none of them.
  
• For a bluff, the opponent can accept the prediction - or they can say “prove it” (i.e., calling their bluff).
  

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Can I use the following criterion?

I'm not going to approve unofficial language; instead, I'd just point to the opening paragraph of MTR 4.2, re: Tournament Shortcuts.

d:^D

I am a lot less confused now :-)

Sorry about the unofficial language.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Florian, I think I see the source of your confusion - and I'll agree, shortcuts and bluffs are similar, even intertwined. But bluffs include suggestion of a possibility that may never occur; shortcuts simply say "let's skip to here".

Are we risking creating a situation where players need to say the “magic words” to win? I'm worried that competitive players might start saying things like, “I accept your shortcut. Maggot is in play, here is my hand.” in response to the proposed bluff.

Saying “I accept your shortcut” will not create one (and will not make a Maggot appear in your opponent's deck of there is none). I am not even sure that your opponent would have to correct you when what you say is obviously false.

Savvy players can simply wait for their opponent to actually play the sequence of actions.

There could be a problem if all Pod players started to say “I get Sin Collector” whenever they Pod for 3, but such things do not typically happen.