Slow play and thinking

[OurSerratedDust]

I know such things aren't really precisely measured, but I just a had a quick question about slow play. Let's say a storm player has begun his turn and a judge is standing by, watching the game. About how long is the storm player allowed to think before he will be called for slow play? I was just looking for a rough estimate. Does this time depend on how much time is left in the round?

I ask because a judge snapped at me the other day for thinking for about five to ten seconds near the end of a round, and it didn't seem fair to me. I understand that I wasn't technically "advancing the gamestate," but most games of magic involve periods of thinking and planning.

Anyways, thanks guys!

[cdr]

There isn't a hard rule. You might get 30 seconds before a caution if you've been playing at a decent pace otherwise. If you don't speed up after the caution, you'll get a warning.

While you're playing, you're probably a poor judge of how much time is passing. Then again, judges can be too if they haven't been trained.

Time on the clock is not relevant.

[Arsenal]

Does the gamestate matter when evaluating Slow Play? Like, if there's a ton of stuff (enchantments, artifiacts, creatures, planewalkers) out on both sides of the board, and each player has a full hand? Surely the amount of time allowed to think in that situation should be longer than if both players have nothing but lands in play and each player only has a couple cards in hand, right?

[cdr]

Gamestate is mostly irrelevant. Some judges will give you less time than normal if the gamestate is uncomplicated, I'm in the camp that it doesn't matter. You never get more time because of the gamestate.

The one exception is if the judge has been watching your entire match and knows how fast you've been playing for the entire match - then you might get slightly more leeway.

[Anusien]

Even when players are thinking and have a difficult decision, it turns to Slow Play when one of two things happen:
A) They make a decision and just hesitate during making it. They have done the math, decided on a plan, and then they RECOUNT everything two or three times. There pretty much isn't an excuse to check your graveyard four times during the same turn.
B) The player does all the math, makes a decision, plays a spell that doesn't affect the board, and goes back into the tank. If you spent 30 seconds doing the math and just played a land, you shouldn't have to do the math again.

[Ryoku]

Gamestate is mostly irrelevant. Some judges will give you less time than normal if the gamestate is uncomplicated, I'm in the camp that it doesn't matter. You never get more time because of the gamestate.

The one exception is if the judge has been watching your entire match and knows how fast you've been playing for the entire match - then you might get slightly more leeway.

The head judge at the first premier event I've judged said (though I'm sure it changes from judge to judge):


If you can walk over to a game, look at a player's hand, completely analyze the game state, make a decision of what you would play, and count to 10 before the player's made his or her decision, it's slow play.


The exception to this is between games-- players have 3 minutes to sideboard, shuffle, and present. No exceptions.

[cdr]

The head judge at the first premier event I've judged said (though I'm sure it changes from judge to judge):


The exception to this is between games-- players have 3 minutes to sideboard, shuffle, and present. No exceptions.

Anusien and especially myself are both very experienced judges - I'm sure you still have some things to learn about slow play, it's one of the most difficult concepts in judging :)

Especially as far as the latter, "no exceptions" is not accurate - judges should give players a reminder if it looks like they're going to go over or if they go over a little. You don't jump in at 3 minutes on the dot and start handing out penalties. You want to prevent having to give out slow play penalties if you can.

[Ryoku]

You say slow play is complicated to judge, but then you try to say that it's basically a hard-and-fast 30 second limit to make a decision? Something's not adding up there. Judges need to take more than just a clock into account.

As for the three minutes... "no exceptions" refers to the time limit. If players are simply allowed to go over that limit, it can't be enforced at all. It should be three minutes for a judge to take action, but not necessarily an official warning or game loss or anything-- most of the time, a caution will suffice.

However, if judges simply say nothing, the system breaks down. Hence why I say there's no exceptions-- at 3 minutes, judges are all but required to say something.

[cdr]

You say slow play is complicated to judge, but then you try to say that it's basically a hard-and-fast 30 second limit to make a decision? Something's not adding up there. Judges need to take more than just a clock into account.

The very first thing I said is that there's no hard rule. The OP wanted a guideline, though, so I gave him one - 30 seconds is a very widely quoted guideline. And that's between significant game actions, not just making a decision.

I also didn't say it's complicated - I said it's difficult. Slow Play is by far the most underassigned infraction, and there are a few philsophical and practical nuances to applying it even once you get past the unconfortableness of calling it. Broadly, you want to get players to speed up without feeling too much like you're picking on them (like the OP).

It should almost never take thirty seconds of just sitting there for a player to make a decision. In a competitive or professional environment, you should be doing your thinking while your opponent is taking actions. And again, judges do not give you extra consideration because "the game state is complicated" - that's policy. Almost every player you give a Slow Play penalty to will complain something akin to that. Unless you've been watching a large portion of the match - a rare situation - time is all a judge has to go on.

[Offler]

I play two kinds of decks this time. Blue highlander combo deck, and Type 2 Vampire agro.

the difference between decks is very significant. One is very complicated, caused by its nature and amount of different cards, second one is very straightforward.

People tend to play slower if the situation require extreme hard decision, or the game is not going way as they intended. Just from tournament experience here...

Winter orb hits the table.
Situation A) Red Aggro Goblin: Player drops the cards and concede immediatelly.
Situation B) Blue control deck: He does not drop but he decides (after 20 seconds) to draw 3 new cards with Brainstorm, and then he think again about new cards on hand. Game continues, he draws new card in new round and think again.

red player decided to concede because of time limits. He does not wish a longer game, because his deck does not have any artifact destruction. He wishes to start another game immediately, because chance of another winter orb in play is lower as really bad non-agressive hand.

Blue player has choices, and choices and another choices. This is not a robotic game such as "drop a land, play a goblin". Decisions will took more time, just because of deck construction.

Both actions players decided to do are legal as far I know, but both are using time limit in opposite way. Red player is counting with statistic chance of finishing aggro in 4th turn which is part of his deck, and statistic chance of getting another Winter Orb into play, to finish up the game in 5 minutes or less. Blue one just continue in play knowing that he can take less actions as without orb on table, and maybe one unfinished game due time limit which also might give him extra points on tour.

Both tactics can be either intentional or unintentional, so I dont see a problem to keep them in play.

Third situation:

Player finishes his turn annoucing "If you dont do something I will win in next turn." The second player stops thinking and checks the table if there is something what can do such things. He starts to re-think all his actions he planned and this takes some time.

Easy to say "Use thrash talk to cause slow play your opponnent." I have seen this too many times to attend on any tournament here. Luckily only few players were bold enough to call the judge and accuse opponnent of slow play.

and the last one:

Inkwell leviathan entered battlefied. Player end its turn. Second player thinks, draws a card, thinks again. Judge announces 5 turns to finish the game. And immediately he plays Yosei, copy him with Vesuvan Shapeshifter and announces that he can tap up to 10 permanents.(to be honest that player cheated, since Inkwell has shroud and it cannot be targeted, and judge took no action even when he was watching the game). Time and turn limit runs out, game ends in a draw.

It was certain that second player was waiting for that announcement, even when situation was clear. Inkwell on table, island, no chance to win, no mass destruction on hand, so he was thinking about how to cheat the opponnent or just waiting. besides of total failure of judge this was very good example of long play.

Those actions are pretty far from being polite during the play. Two of them are however legal, third one is on the edge and much depends on judges, and the fourth is completely illegal, but again depends on the judge.

In most cases (my own experience) judge has to be involved if you suspect long play from your oponnent, and he decides what will happen. Its just necessary to describe the game situation as exactly as possible and say that you suspect something what might be not legal.

[Richard Cheese]

If you can walk over to a game, look at a player's hand, completely analyze the game state, make a decision of what you would play, and count to 10 before the player's made his or her decision, it's slow play.


I'm not really crazy about that line of thinking. It more or less assumes that the judge is not only as skilled or more so than the player, but is just as knowledgeable or more so about the decks involved. Is it not entirely possible that a judge walks up, looks at the table and your hand, and decides on a suboptimal play almost immediately, while you have already moved past that and onto other options? I think this also raises the question, should/do well-known players get more leeway with slow play infractions than unknowns?

[cdr]

Yeah, I'm not fond of that sort of thinking either. I expect most experienced judges would avoid trying to do more than a very basic analysis of a game, thankfully.

Everyone should same treatment with Slow Play, as with anything else.

[Malakai]

This post is directed at our esteemed judges.

Consider the following:
1. Resolving Gifts Ungiven in a Vintage tournament when half your targets are gone.
2. Resolving Doomsday when the opponent has a Wasteland and a Duress.
3. Taking your first turn when your hand is 3x Mountain, 1x Goblin Guide, 3x 2cc cards
4. Deciding whether to mulligan a hand of 7x Island
5. Deciding whether to attack in SOM limited when you control a Wall of Tanglecord and another creature, and the opponent controls none.
6. Deciding to do anything when you are in topdeck-mode and you draw a basic land.

Are players to expect that they have the same amount of time to complete each of these?

One final question (a two-parter!):
Are the game-state and the time left on the clock taken into account for Cheating -- Stalling? If so, why aren't they taken into account for Slow Play?

I'm not trying to be rude here--I just think I've outlined some pertinent questions.

[cdr]

This post is directed at our esteemed judges.

Consider the following:
1. Resolving Gifts Ungiven in a Vintage tournament when half your targets are gone.
2. Resolving Doomsday when the opponent has a Wasteland and a Duress.
3. Taking your first turn when your hand is 3x Mountain, 1x Goblin Guide, 3x 2cc cards
4. Deciding whether to mulligan a hand of 7x Island
5. Deciding whether to attack in SOM limited when you control a Wall of Tanglecord and another creature, and the opponent controls none.
6. Deciding to do anything when you are in topdeck-mode and you draw a basic land.

Are players to expect that they have the same amount of time to complete each of these?

Not the exact same amount of time - even I will give a little upwards leeway for something obviously especially complex - but the difference isn't going to be more than say, a couple tens of seconds. I consider it important to let players bluff if they want, so I will generally not even look at a player's hand when evaluating Slow Play. Some judges will look at your hand and if you're holding nothing but lands, only give you ten seconds before cautioning you.


One final question (a two-parter!):
Are the game-state and the time left on the clock taken into account for Cheating -- Stalling? If so, why aren't they taken into account for Slow Play?

Cheating infractions involve intent, so things like the clock and game state are taken into account as far as they might show motive or intent.

The clock is irrelevant to Slow Play - you are expected to play at minimum pace throughout the round. Game state is almost completely irrelevant to Slow Play - you are expected to be able to play at a minimum pace no matter what the game state is.

[Malakai]

So basically, any player that is playing a complicated deck--e.g. Doomsday--will just have to soak up a Slow Play gameloss over the course of a tournament, regardless of the fact that none of his or her matches were in danger of going to time.

[ummon]

The one thing I'm wonder though is this: what if my opponent plays several complicated permanents (perhaps non-English), and I want to understand the game-state and think what options the opponent has in response to my next play. Do I have to play at the usual pace because the game state has little bearing on slow play?

[cdr]

So basically, any player that is playing a complicated deck--e.g. Doomsday--will just have to soak up a Slow Play gameloss over the course of a tournament, regardless of the fact that none of his or her matches were in danger of going to time.

There's risk in playing complicated decks, yes. People have managed just fine, though - some people spend hours memorizing Doomsday piles for partially this reason.


The one thing I'm wonder though is this: what if my opponent plays several complicated permanents (perhaps non-English), and I want to understand the game-state and think what options the opponent has in response to my next play. Do I have to play at the usual pace because the game state has little bearing on slow play?

If you need card text, you should call a judge for it. Time spent with a judge is free. Keep in mind, though, that calling a judge with the intent to give yourself more time to think can constitute Stalling.

In general, though, you're expected to be at least somewhat familiar with cards in a competitive environment. You're not given much leeway because you didn't know what a card did.