Play to Win situation

acbishop wrote:

But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards.

This is incorrect.

If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene.

[LSJ 20041120]

LSJ wrote:

> - or would you only intervene at the time B wants to roll over for A
> getting the GW?

The judge should be called to intervene as soon as [Play to Win] is violated.

[LSJ 20040619]

LSJ wrote:

> How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?

The judge "enforces" a correction to illegal play by disallowing the
illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only
the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect
whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance
for the remaining players.

...

We (judges) can all make mistakes. If you feel that the judge
made a mistake, you can ask for further clarification after the
tournament from this newsgroup or via private email to me or
to the prince list or what have you. The judge's ruling must
be followed at the tournament, however.

You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

acbishop wrote:

But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards.

This is incorrect.

If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene.


You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop.

You didn't understand what I wanted to say(it could be cause my mothern language is not English), and you're always taking everything I'm writing in the worst case scenario.

We're talking about play-to-win situation here and not stalling, collusion, whatever, ...

I think that you are thinking that I've never judged a tournament before also, I did, several times.

So, you have your opinion, and I have mine, your reasonable judgment is different than mine, ok I accept that. And I know I won't be able to make you understand exactly what I want to say (maybe my fault cause of my English, maybe not...).

acbishop wrote:

You didn't understand what I wanted to say(it could be cause my mothern language is not English), and you're always taking everything I'm writing in the worst case scenario.

I am reading the words that you write, not the words that are in your head.

acbishop wrote:

We're talking about play-to-win situation here and not stalling, collusion, whatever, ...

And judges msut intervene when play-to-win is violated.

acbishop wrote:

I think that you are thinking that I've never judged a tournament before also, I did, several times.

Quite the reverse. Since you haev actively stated the desire to enforce the rules wrongly, I am asking you to stop doing so!

acbishop wrote:

So, you have your opinion, and I have mine,

I have the rules and multiple rulings to support my position.

In the Rules forum, it is helpful to tell people what the real rules are. What I am providing are the actual, real rules. Not the incorrect rules that you are intent on enforcing.

Your interpretation of the rules is wrong. This is not an opinion. This is fact.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

acbishop wrote:

But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards.

This is incorrect.

If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene.

[LSJ 20041120]

LSJ wrote:

> - or would you only intervene at the time B wants to roll over for A
> getting the GW?

The judge should be called to intervene as soon as [Play to Win] is violated.

You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop.

Violating PTW is a case of unsportsmanlike conduct. No where in the tournament rules or penalty guidelines is it suggested that the judge play for the player. How else should a judge intervene, other than penalizing the player?

Correct way to handle the situation:
"Self-ousting at this point is evidently not playing to win. You should correct your play, but if you continue with the self-oust you will be subject to penalties up to and including disqualification."

Make your point without actually playing for the player in question. Because ultimately the player can still refuse, pick up his or her cards, and leave. And I'd wager that you get more cooperation by giving the player the impression that he or she is under control of his or her own play.

Dorrinal wrote:

Violating PTW is a case of unsportsmanlike conduct. No where in the tournament rules or penalty guidelines is it suggested that the judge play for the player. How else should a judge intervene, other than penalizing the player?

Quoted again:

LSJ wrote:

The judge "enforces" a correction to illegal play by disallowing the
illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only
the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect
whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance
for the remaining players.

This was asked specifically regarding play-to-win, but it can potentially apply to other forms of illegal play. (It depends precisely on the illegal play, obviously - it won't make sense for all of them!)

If the judge is only alerted to it later, they can make any of a variety of game state alterations/corrections (as they can for any other infraction). Obvious examples including adjusting pool totals (up or down), moving cards in and out of play, adjusting the blood or life on a minion, tapping or untapping a card, or whatever else. These changes are not intended to be punishments, but rather game state corrections. Punishments are supposed to be handled by issuing cautions, warnings, disqualifications, losses etc. Clearly, there will be some differences of opinion on precisely what changes are made (I might give you 2 pool back, but some other judge might give you 3), and on how they are perceived.

The usenet group is an excellent resource, but LSJ's suggestion is not part of the Tournament Rules or Judges' Guide. Until this is corrected (and I wouldn't mind, because it makes good sense) my interpretation is correct.