SCG Baltimore Classic top 4 split

[Obfuscate Freely]

Alix Hatfield here, and I'm sorry for not seeing this earlier and clearing things up.

Things happened basically how Nick described. Mike asked if I would concede, not because he expected me to, but because he felt he was somewhat ahead in the game and thought it was worth asking. I didn't think he was that far ahead, since I had a Top going and I had at least found an Entreat. I had several answers to his Explosives left in my deck, and he needed to bounce and replay his Batterskull to threaten my life total, so I was comfortable taking the draw.

Unfortunately, my only outward response to Mike's request was to mumble something about having the Entreat, and flip it over to show him. He pointed to his Explosives, and then we were interrupted by one of the floor judges, who told us both to stop everything. The two of them then went off to consult the head judge, while Mike and I slowly worked out what I had done wrong.

I honestly flashed the Entreat without thinking twice. I had been manipulating the top of my deck so much that I was almost taking it for granted that I knew what was there. Actually, a few turns earlier I had somehow physically botched a Top activation, looking at the top 3 and then knocking them across the board when I tried to put them back. The judges didn't issue a warning then, because I had just looked at the cards.

Revealing the Entreat on the final turn, amidst a discussion about conceding, is an entirely different matter. It was stupid of me to not realize that, and I understand why it is illegal to do so. At that point, the Entreat on top of my deck (in my library) was known to me, but not to Mike. If revealing it were to have influenced him to decide whether or not to concede to me, then the outcome of the match would have been determined by something it should not have. Just as if we had flipped a coin or rolled dice to determine the winner.

I do, however, think it was silly to get disqualified over something that I could have easily done without breaking any rules. As it was already pointed out, it would have been okay for me to spin my Top and show Mike any or all of those cards. I just didn't realize I needed to do that.

So yes, I am disappointed in the outcome of a situation that I put myself into by being dumb. Let it be said, though, that all of the judges I interacted with were polite, professional, and apologetic. They did what they felt they had to do, and they went out of their way to make sure I understood why things played out like they did.

Let it also be said that Mike was an awesome opponent, and I think he might've been more upset by what happened than I was. We had a good match, and I'm looking forward to the next time we play.

Thanks for the kind words here in this thread, guys. Take this as a lesson not to get sloppy at the end of a match; Wizards is very serious about maintaining the integrity of match results.

And congrats on crushing, Nick! Hope to see you again, soon.

[troopatroop]

I remember giving a deck box back to you that I found in syracuse back in the day, it had Werebears in it I think...


I felt compelled to reply, thanks for that writeup.

Also getting the U/w scepter deck dismantled by your WWW deck was an honor and a privilege. So many Wastelands.

Edit your post, do not post over and over again. It is unsightly and unnecessary.

Dice.

[kombatkiwi]

The DQ seems almost certainly wrong.

I mean assuming I'm reading the story right, Alix could have spinned top, drew the Entreat just to show it to his opponent and not get DQ'd. But because he didn't use that ridiculous sequence, he did.

This above quote basically sums up the situation.

- The philosophy behind the rule is that by playing the "let's see who would have won" game, flipping unknown cards off the top of your library, you're accessing information you didn't have access to in-game in order to decide the match outcome, so it's 'randomly determining a winner' in disguise.

- There is already a precedent in the IPG that judges can/should take into consideration players knowing the position of cards in their library, as part of the fix of the 'Looking at Extra Cards' infraction:

Additional Remedy: Shuffle the random portion of the deck, including any previously unknown cards that were accidentally seen.

- Therefore this situation should not be any different to the acceptable example given in the CFB article:

You can still ask your opponent to concede. This happens all the time. Saying “you’re at 1 life and I’m at 5 million life, I would have won” is a statement about information you had access to during the game. So is, “I had a Lightning Bolt in hand.” These are fine. Once you start using outside information instead, whether it’s randomly rolling dice or randomly flipping the top 5 cards from your library, it’s no longer considered information from your game.

He's not even trying to make any agreement with the opponent about deciding the outcome of the game. All he's saying is "I have access to X information, therefore I am not conceding"

[rlesko]

I think the biggest thing here that I had not considered is that, in light of the revealing of information (Entreat) from Alix, it could have prompted Mike to concede instead, which is why its not ok.