Intentional misleading?

[Skeggi]

LCL 2011 - Torneo Final: Final. Miquel Alcoriza (UWr Stoneblade) vs. Alberto Manchado (Canadian)
http://manainfinito.com/videos/lcl-2...chado-canadian

Questionable play by Alberto Manchado at 5:55. Miquel Alcoriza has a Jace with 5 loyalty. Alberto plays a Lightning Bolt directly on Jace, so Jace drops to 2. The second Lightning Bolt, he targets Alberto, who wants to write down the lifeloss, but then Miquel starts 'playing correctly' by redirecting the damage to Jace. Miquel wants to counter, but is pointed out it's already too late. Now Alberto also knows Miquel has a Force of Will with a blue spell in his hand of 2 cards.

Is this allowed? Looks like he had full intent to mislead his opponent.

[Sloshthedark]

I seems to me he played the bolt in same way as the first one but did not announce target clearly, opponent said its OK and understood it as targeting him... since he confirmed the damage the guy claims its too late...

otherwise I remember a thread here about making notes and as i recall the outcome was that notes are personal and writing down anything, life included, cannot be taken as confirming the damage/spell resolution

[klaus]

That's a tricky one - curious to get a thorough answer!

[Skeggi]

I seems to me he played the bolt in same way as the first one but did not announce target clearly, opponent said its OK and understood it as targeting him... since he confirmed the damage the guy claims its too late...

No it's different. A Lightning Bolt cannot target a Planeswalker. You have to target the player, then redirect the damage to the Planeswalker. But usually, people just target the Planeswalker instead of going the 'correct' route. In this case, Alberto exploits this by immediately implying the redirection with his first Lightning Bolt, but with his second explicitly targetting his opponent. The opponent shrugs and is willing to take the three damage, but when he's going to write the damage down Alberto indicates he wants to redirect the damage to Jace. Miquel then decides he wants to counter the Lightning Bolt, but is too late.

Alberto explicitly abuses a 'Jedi mind trick' here to let Miquel not counter the second bolt:

1. First bolt immediately targets Jace and resolves
2. Second bolt targets opponent, but damage gets redirected to Jace.

In this scenario, the second play of Lightning Bolt is correct, but the first is intentionally cut short to cause confusion.

[PeAcH]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)

As Skeggi mentions, first bolt uses a shortcut whilst second one does not.

For me it´s not a "Mind Trick" but another thing...

If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?

[Skeggi]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)

Oops, I'll correct that.

If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?

I think we're saying the same thing.

[PeAcH]

Yes, I was just agreeing with you

[SpikeyMikey]

Just a quick note: Miquel is the one playing Blade (left) and Alberto plays RUG (right) :)

As Skeggi mentions, first bolt uses a shortcut whilst second one does not.

For me it´s not a "Mind Trick" but another thing...

If you play the first bolt incorrectly and then the second one with another target what are you trying to accomplish? To fool you opponent trying to make him think you did not know how this worked to gain advantage of this once you let him know you do?

If you target me with Bolt and redirect to Jace, the second time you target me, I counter. But since the first time you shortcut it and the second time you target me, I assume you mean to deal 3 to me, not to redirect. It is definitely an intentionally misleading play.

[cdr]

It comes down to whether a shortcut was being used with the second Bolt, which would depend a lot on what was said. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sound.

If Alberto for instance merely pointed the Bolt at Miquel and did not say anything, the game should be backed up to the Lightning Bolt being on the stack - Miquel completely reasonably interpreted the second Bolt as a shortcut of "Bolt, deal damage to you".

If Alberto did not leave any room for a shortcut and said something like "Bolt, targeting you" then the game should not be backed up.

[Skeggi]

There is sound (soft, but it's there), but apparently Google Tanslate doesn't work with youtube videos . Can someone translate please? When Alberto casts the second Bolt he clearly says something, but my Spanish doesn't go any further than "dos cervezas por favor". Edit: I believe he says "a ti" which means "to you".

You speak of backing up the game in certain situations; but I have the distinct feeling that Alberto is trying to mislead his opponent. Is this allowed? I thought it could be considered as cheating. Alberto doesn't say anything when casting the first Bolt, he just points with it at Jace. With the second Bolt I think he explicitly says he's targetting his opponent, letting Miquel walk in a trap which he set by shortcutting the first Bolt. That doesn't seem right to me. If you're allowed to use shortcuts when redirecting damage to a Planeswalker, shouldn't you be consistent and not misuse this to mislead your opponent?

Edit: this is what I dug up from Tournament Rules, section 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts:

A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

Certain conventional tournament shortcuts used in Magic are detailed below. If a player wishes to deviate from
these, he or she should be explicit about doing so. Note that some of these are exceptions to the policy above in
that they do cause non-explicit priority passes.

A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

He initially used the shortcut to target Jace. After that, he broke the shortcut, but that should only be done if you wish to deviate from it.

So how is this not cheating?

[Trentemoller]

This is for sure a legal play, I like it!

You cannot target a planeswalker, you have to redirect it. There is a conventional and legal shortcut though, by "targeting" the planeswalker. This is allowed and it means that if the bolt resolves you have to redirect it to the planeswalker. On the other hand, if you target a player, once it resolves you have the choice if you want to redirect it. Both are legal and the first one is used a lot but by no means neccesary. If you do the shortcut first you are in no way obliged to use that shortcut every time. Bolting your opponent and then redirecting is completely legal :)

[cdr]

There is sound (soft, but it's there), but apparently Google Tanslate doesn't work with youtube videos . Can someone translate please? When Alberto casts the second Bolt he clearly says something, but my Spanish doesn't go any further than "dos cervezas por favor". Edit: I believe he says "a ti" which means "to you".

You speak of backing up the game in certain situations; but I have the distinct feeling that Alberto is trying to mislead his opponent. Is this allowed? I thought it could be considered as cheating. Alberto doesn't say anything when casting the first Bolt, he just points with it at Jace. With the second Bolt I think he explicitly says he's targetting his opponent, letting Miquel walk in a trap which he set by shortcutting the first Bolt. That doesn't seem right to me. If you're allowed to use shortcuts when redirecting damage to a Planeswalker, shouldn't you be consistent and not misuse this to mislead your opponent?

There's legal ways to mislead your opponent and not-legal ways.

In this case, you can legally use a shortcut for one thing and then not use a shortcut for another thing. This may be what Alberto is trying to do, but when you're doing something like that you have to be very clear that a shortcut is not being invoked. "Target you" would be clear, "To you" would not.

Edit: this is what I dug up from Tournament Rules, section 4.2 Tournament Shortcuts:

Using shortcuts to create ambiguity is not allowed, but there's no penalty for it. In extreme cases it could be Fraud, but usually just a strong caution from the judge not to try that.

He initially used the shortcut to target Jace. After that, he broke the shortcut, but that should only be done if you wish to deviate from it.

So how is this not cheating?

He used a shortcut to declare his intent to redirect to Jace upon resolution (and he is bound by that unless his opponent responds). The second time he could not break a shortcut, just announce normally and his opponent allowed the spell to resolve. That may or may not be what happened, I can't hear the audio and my Magic spanish is not very good anyway.

It's not cheating, but it's skirting the border of legality.

[honestabe]

I see nothing wrong with it. The guy didn't break the rules, he just used a mind trick

[TsumiBand]

I have to say I don't like it, if only because it involves a crappy aspect of burning out Planeswalkers.

Have you ever looked at the interaction between Player A playing Lightning Bolt targeting Player B, who controls a Planeswalker and has a Healing Salve in hand? It's really unintuitive. It's small wonder that a player could use a shortcut to confuse the issue, as the issue is already confused.

Barring this, I don't think there is such a thing as an acceptable shortcut that involves game actions at a certain REL. It's one thing to say "Land, go" and not pass priority back and forth for the phases you've 'skipped over' during your turn; it's another to cast a spell that is declared with an illegal target and call it a 'shortcut'. It's not Two Explores bad, but it shouldn't be happening.

[Skeggi]

First, thanks for your elaborate answer cdr, it certainly clears alot of things up. However, I've also asked the same question on another forum and a judge over there said Alberto perhaps should have been handed a DQ.

This is his (freely translated, because it's in Dutch) reasoning:

Apparently Alberto knows exactly how to play by the rules. If he doesn't do this with the intention to gain an advantage it's cheating.

The argument against this is that bolt #1 is played through an acceptable shortcut, namely:

* A player who chooses a planeswalker as the target of a spell or ability that would deal damage is assumed to be targeting the planeswalker’s controller and redirecting the damage on resolution. The player must adhere to that choice unless an opponent responds.

With his second Bolt he's clearly deviating from the earlier used shortcut.

* A player is not allowed to use a previously undeclared tournament shortcut, or to modify an in-use tournament shortcut without announcing the modification, in order to create ambiguity in the game.

This is what he does.

For me it's the question whether he intentionally did this to gain advantage (cheating) or something else is going on. These kind of scenario's are difficult to judge if you weren't there or didn't talk to the guy. For me this is enough to start an investigation.

This is basically what I was trying to say. What do you think of this cdr? If Alberto intentionally tried to gain an advantage by not following his previous shortcut, was he cheating?

In terms of the spirit of the game: you may think this is a cool way to outwit your opponents but I think it's ruining the game. I believe the intent of the game is to outwit your opponent by making smart plays, not tricking your opponent into some bureaucratic rule loophole.

[cdr]

This is basically what I was trying to say. What do you think of this cdr? If Alberto intentionally tried to gain an advantage by not following his previous shortcut, was he cheating?

In terms of the spirit of the game: you may think this is a cool way to outwit your opponents but I think it's ruining the game. I believe the intent of the game is to outwit your opponent by making smart plays, not tricking your opponent into some bureaucratic rule loophole.

Jumping to "DQ" is a stretch. Fraud requires knowing, intentional misrepresentation of rules/procedure. Fraud would require that he used a different shortcut on the second Bolt and then misrepresented to his opponent that it was too late to counter, knowing that it in fact was not too late. Unlikely. Investigate certainly, though.

Part of the issue, maybe, is that there's no penalty for abuse of shortcuts - it's nothing or it's Fraud/DQ. That makes some judges uncomfortable.

I can't see anything wrong per the rules with switching from using a shortcut to not using a shortcut - which again may not have been what happened here. Most likely outcome I think would be caution the guy and back the game up, but can't know without being there.

[PeAcH]

Yesterday, I talked with the people who attended the tournament and saw the match and got confirmed the situation was felt live as depicted here by Skeggi.

Unfortunately, the tournament was Invitation Only, so it was not open to all the public and thus not sanctioned. And there was no Judge to be able to provide all the entry in prizes for the players.

It´s supposed that having the best 32 players of a League with a monthly attendance of more than 100 players should be a sinonym of having everybody playing by the rules and avoiding this situations.

Next year we will try our best to have a Judge in the finals.

From the spirit of the game pov, it´s sad to have to see this situation (or Mind Trick as called by other people) in the Finals of this tournament.

I really thank the Dutch Judge comment on the issue and thank him for clarifying this. Much appreciated.

Finally, thanks Skeggi for pointing this out and doing the research.

[Malchar]

If the player with the Jace actually knew the rules of the game, nothing would have gone wrong. We shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate players that don't know how to play, especially at high-level tournaments.

[honestabe]

If the player with the Jace actually knew the rules of the game, nothing would have gone wrong. We shouldn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate players that don't know how to play, especially at high-level tournaments.

This.

The guy with the Jace didn't know the rules and lost. Tough shit. Don't fall for it next time.

[Skeggi]

I wouldn't question his playskills or knowledge of the rules. The guy is in the final of a 32 player event, chances are it tired him out a bit, making him less sharp and more vulnerable to mind tricks.