Rules Tip of the Day: When you are unsure why a judge has giving a certain ruling, feel free to ask for clarification. During a tournament the judge may not be able to provide further information immediately as he does not to interfere with the continuation of your match. But you will often get the chance to talk to staff in-between rounds.

A ruling I gave in the July 19^th column of "Ask the Judge" that revolved around the issue of player intent and the use of shortcuts generated a lot of debate on the Starcitygames forum. I even received some email on the subject and a request for further clarification. I am going to try and provide more information on my ruling here. If you read through the discussion on the forums, some of this will be repetitive.

You can find the initial ruling here. It is the last question and answer in the article. You can also find the original discussion of that ruling.

Much of the debate revolved around the belief that the player who played the Meddling Mage (player A) made a misplay. Let me state that I do not believe that to be the case. This situation resolves around a communication error and not a play error. When making the choice of a card, if player A thinks he has chosen Thirst for Knowledge and his opponent thinks he has chosen Thirst, then we have players operating with two different sets of information and a miscommunication issue.

All players in a game have a responsibility to make sure that everyone has the same information regarding the game state and changes made to the game state. You are not required to make sure your opponents understand the relative importance of this information of the repercussions of the changes, but all of you in the game do need the same facts. However, if you believe that there is a misunderstanding about the game state, you have the responsibility to clarify the matter.

While you have a responsibility to make sure your opponent is aware of what the game state is, this does not mean that you have to constantly remind him. If a creature has taken damage early in the turn, you do not need to continually point that out. If later in the turn this creature receives further damage so it now has lethal damage, you have not done anything wrong by failing to point this out to your opponent so he can save this creature. You need to make sure that your opponent understands changes in the game state. If he forgets them, that is his fault.

Another point of contention was my suggestion that the opponent (Player B) in this case was either being unsporting or cheating by insisting that the named card by Thirst, and not Thirst for Knowledge. When Player A said "Thirst" I can think of three possible scenarios of what went through player B's mind:

A - He thinks that his opponent actually chose the card Thirst. In this situation there is no unsporting behavior or cheating involved, just miscommunication. If Player B argues excessively that the named card was and should be Thirst, then he is entering the realm of unsporting behavior.

B - He thinks that his opponent chose the card Thirst for Knowledge. In this case there is no problem at all, as both players are operating with the same assumptions and pieces of information.

C - He thinks that his opponent intended to choose the card Thirst for Knowledge, but because his opponent only said Thirst his opponent has screwed up and he will be able to gain an advantage. In this final scenario, Player B is cheating. He knows there is a misunderstanding and is attempting to take advantage of it. In this situation it is the intent of Player B that determines whether or not he is cheating. It is possible that this player will then try to convince the judge that he really did think the named card was Thirst. Hopefully the judge will be able to figure out the truth by figuring out of Player B's intent.

The final major issue regarding this question was how do you determine intent. Some players think this is entirely irrelevant as determining intent is very difficult or foolish. The first step is to use the information that you have. If this is game three, you won one of the games due to he card drawn off of Thirst for Knowledge, almost won the other with that card and your opponent has complained about your use of that it, then it seems obvious to me that he means Thirst for Knowledge when he says Thirst. Or if you or your opponent have played the card previously in the match and referred to is as Thirst when doing so. It doesn't really matter what the specific situation is, it is often possible to figure out what your opponent means even when he uses a nickname.

In situations when you are unsure what your opponents intent is you can find out the same way that judges do, you ask questions. When a judge needs to know intent when giving a ruling, he will ask player why they made a certain play or action or what they were thinking of at the time. If you are worried about giving your opponent too much information or influencing his play, then you need to choose your words carefully. You can just say, "Just to be clear, you are choosing the card named Thirst, correct?" Figuring out intent is not necessarily easy, but is it not mind reading.

As a final thought; while there are many fine details in the rules, the game is not about exploiting these technicalities and taking advantage of an opponent's minor procedural errors. Magic is not Simon Says or Mother May I. The game and tournament scene has come a long way since the beginning when you had to generate all mana before playing a spell and would receive warnings when you didn't. The finals of Pro Tour Los Angeles in 1997 were determined because a player was disqualified due to doing this multiple times. In the end this, issue falls down to one of sportsmanship. You are expected to know the rules and abide by them, but don't be a rules lawyer and try to take advantage of infinitesimal procedural violations.