Bluffing?

[SLOW DECK]

Is this legal Bluffing?

I do this all the time with Mulligan's. I draw my seven cards, I don’t have a basic pokemon.

I will proceed to put non basic card as my starter and maybe another card on my bench. (Both Face down) Proceed to Deal out my prize cards if my opponent still hasn’t put down a starting pokemon. Usually I don’t need to do prizes, but if my opponent is very slow in declaring his mulligan, then I need to carry on the bluff.

Immediately when opponent puts face down their starting pokemon, then I will show my mulligan.

I am obviously just trying to make my opponent declare his starter before he knows they going to draw a mulligan. This is for the ever slight angle(yes slight) that they might decide to play one basic over another basic if they knew they and another card coming.

Is playing out a mulligan this way legal?

 

[SalamenceGreat]

instein

What are you on about now? Are you trying to insult me or something?

Weird.

I don't have to prove anything. It's up to a judge to make that call if it ever comes up.

Judges read these threads. They know who you are and what to look out for. Will you get penalized for it every time? Probably not. But hey, you can probably break the rules hundreds of ways and get away with it.

That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it legal.

If you do it, you risk a penalty.

Sorry, the "enstein" part was just a slip of the tongue. An in the moment thing. No offense intended. I enjoy a good argument and get a little too involved at times...


Hey, just because I support a certain topic, doesnt mean I do it. I dont bluff cause I just cant. But a player with good skill can win without bluffing.

And waht I meant was; How does a judge prove it? A bluff isnt like a missplay where you can see it, and deal with it.



Also, Squirtle; Can you further elaborate on that example please?

I dont get it. He showed his opponent a card from his hand, and his opponent losses automatically? What?

 

[baby mario]

Sorry, the "enstein" part was just a slip of the tongue. An in the moment thing. No offense intended.

Ah, ok. No worries.

And waht I meant was; How does a judge prove it? A bluff isnt like a missplay where you can see it, and deal with it.

Have to admit, I dunno. But then I'm not a judge. Presumably there will be times when someone plays Lookers or uses Poltergeist and the bluffing player will be found out. Then a judge will have to come and . . . well, judge.

They probably keep a close eye on people who are known for dodgy behaviour too.

 

[SalamenceGreat]

Hm...Yeah. Who knows.


I just want this to be very clear to everyone. "I do not cheat. I do not trick, or deceive. I just play the game using my own skills and luck."


As I've said before, A good player doesnt need tricks or head games to win.

 

[NoPoke]

Is this legal Bluffing?

I do this all the time with Mulligan's. I draw my seven cards, I don’t have a basic Pokémon.

I will proceed to put non basic card as my starter and maybe another card on my bench. (Both Face down) Proceed to Deal out my prize cards if my opponent still hasn’t put down a starting Pokémon. Usually I don’t need to do prizes, but if my opponent is very slow in declaring his mulligan, then I need to carry on the bluff.

Immediately when opponent puts face down their starting Pokémon, then I will show my mulligan.

I am obviously just trying to make my opponent declare his starter before he knows they going to draw a mulligan. This is for the ever slight angle(yes slight) that they might decide to play one basic over another basic if they knew they and another card coming.

Is playing out a mulligan this way legal?

No, but then you should not need to do it anyway. The opponent should place their active before they draw for the mulligan. No need for any "bluff" to force them to setup as per the rule book. They don't get to choose from 8 or more cards, just the seven they initially drew.

[Once you have placed a card face down active it should not be touched and it needs to count as a basic for the purposes of starting the game.]

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

No, but then you should not need to do it anyway. The opponent should place their active before they draw for the mulligan. No need for any "bluff" to force them to setup as per the rule book. They don't get to choose from 8 or more cards, just the seven they initially drew.

[Once you have placed a card face down active it should not be touched and it needs to count as a basic for the purposes of starting the game.]

He's saying that the KNOWLEDGE that they will have one more card (and thus a shot to draw or have access to resource X) will influence their decision.

 

[NoPoke]

I didn't read the post that way, but could have it wrong. I've highlighted the part that states the purpose of the "bluff" so I can see why you say I've misunderstood. Not that such changes my reply at all.

Neither player should have to wait so long for the opponent to place a basic from their opening hand that they need to employ a non-standard setup procedure. Just ask them to place their basic if they are taking a long time.

Neither player should be choosing their starting Pokémon knowing that they are going to draw an extra card for an opponent's mulligan. If they could then you get a "deadly-embrace" : I won't place my starter because the opponent might show a mulligan. If both players think this way then nothing happens as neither player will move for fear of loosing some advantage that they aren't supposed to have anyway.

 

[Lawman]

Is this legal Bluffing?

I do this all the time with Mulligan's. I draw my seven cards, I don’t have a basic pokemon.

I will proceed to put non basic card as my starter and maybe another card on my bench. (Both Face down) Proceed to Deal out my prize cards if my opponent still hasn’t put down a starting pokemon. Usually I don’t need to do prizes, but if my opponent is very slow in declaring his mulligan, then I need to carry on the bluff.

Immediately when opponent puts face down their starting pokemon, then I will show my mulligan.

I am obviously just trying to make my opponent declare his starter before he knows they going to draw a mulligan. This is for the ever slight angle(yes slight) that they might decide to play one basic over another basic if they knew they and another card coming.

Is playing out a mulligan this way legal?

I will say this is improper and could be subject to penalty. Why you may ask? Look to the set up procedures. Every PTO/TO goes over proper set up technique (or should) before rd 1 of their tourneys. You know the part, where all the MAs continue to talk and never hear the number of rds they are playing, when/if a lunch break will occur, etc. All part of opening announcements. Anyway, I digress.

The set up rules state that each player is to place their starting poke/fossil face down in the active position along with up to 5 benched pokes/fossils. Only after you have done that do you set out your prizes and then draw for a mulligan (if oppo has one). You are 1st misrepresenting your game state by saying "I am ready" when you arent. You have not placed a poke as your active, you have used an NRG, trainer, supporter, evo, tool or stadium (soon to add goods!) as your "active". There may be a few penalties that could be assessed.

Again, use the KISS method..Keep It Simple Stupid. If you dont have a basic, simply ask your oppo if they have a basis and place it....then show your hand. Hopefully, they arent taking too long and have already dropped their active.

Keith

 

[ShadowCard]

I think this goes down to how much do we want player interactions rather than card interactions to influence the game? Is a judge going to question every sigh, moan, smile? It sounds very impractical as well as time costly to do.

It sounds like overjudging for a judge to come up and say "why did you sigh yet play very quickly as if that was part of a plan? Were you trying to lure your opponent into using that Power Spray?" All a player has to say is "I played the card to check for my other lvX but it was prized." However, in forcing the player to discuss the sigh, the judge has revealed knowledge to the opponent that the opponent shouldn't have had known: that the player uses a 2nd or different lvX. The judge has damaged the game state by putting closed knowledge into the open when forcing the player to explain a potential motive for an action that may not have had an ulterior motive to begin with.

Is it fine for a judge to hurt the game state because he/she was trying too hard to defend it? How much in a player's face do judges want to be?

I like this quote from Vince:

If you bluff or use questionable tactics, you are going to go up against the opinion of an individual judge, or an individual head judge who may or may not penalize you for the action.

Eventually, you will run into the wrong judge, and you will get smacked down

because that would eliminate any other table talk?
when i drive 6 hours to play in some stupid city championship it is because i want to converse with my opponents, who are often my friends.

why dont we just leave it to what the rules say? say whatever you want, just dont outright lie, and dont intend to mislead/deceive your opponent ever.

The rules also say this:

7.4.1. Slow Play
Attempting to engage in extraneous conversation that interferes with timely play.

Recommended Starting Penalty:​

Tier 1:

Caution
Tier 2: Warning​

Just as a judge can start asking questions about a possible bluff, you can also be asked questions about your use of table talk. If it appears to be interfering with the game, you could receive a penalty. Best to keep table talk to what is relevant to the game state.​

 

[ryanvergel]

if you value not receiving a possible caution in some extreme and nearly impossible circumstance over the amount of personal relations and talking and networking, then yes- it would be best to keep conversation relevant to only the game state.

however, i do not think any living creature would value the mere POSSIBILITY of not receiving a CAUTION in a VERY unlikely and uncommon circumstance over talking in their matches.

that is what i would call being overly cautionary to the point of detracting from one's enjoyment of the game.

 

[Lawman]

As a judge, I am not looking to bust chops for slow play if people are talking with their oppo. I try to look for strain on ppl's face, body language that tells someone they arent happy. Then I look to see why. I am not going to force a player to tell me their strategy. There are many tools and "tricks" that judges develop over the years (and pass onto other judges) on how to spot/deal with slow play.

Now, if "Chatty Cathy" doesnt stop yapping their jaws while the other player is thinking/playing and not conversing back, then I may step in and tell them to pipe it down.

Keith

 

[DarthPika]

On the talking during issue I would like to bring up two different situations.

The following examples are from my experience at VA States last year.

Situation #1. Me and my opponent were in an extremely close match where a single misplay could have very easily decided the winner/loser of the match. We didn't talk any more than necessary to convey our actions to each other. I feel this is a situation where non game related talk would have been inappropriate, and distracting.

Situation #2. This was the last round of swiss, and my opponent and I were 5-0, with the top cut being certain for both of us regardless of who won/lost the match. This was probably my most enjoyable match of the day, as both of us were able to joke around and talk about various things throughout the match. That's not to say we weren't taking it seriously, just that we were able to be a lot looser with conversation due to the circumstances of the match. Games like this can be very enjoyable, and I think it's perfectly fine to talk about non game realated subjects as long as your opponent is willing.

 

[AzNightmare]

The reason was in a Worlds Match a few years ago one player showing Rocked Admin(not playing it), and saying something like "Do you know what this card does?", and coaxing the other player into shuffling their hand into their deck, and the coaxed player getting a game loss because of it. I wasn't there, but that is how I understood it. EVERYONE thought that was a blantant cheap manuever and violated SOTG, and probably could have been ruled differently by judges.

Isn't this the reason this rule was made.

This is so much more severe than "bluffing." And which division was this done in?
Were the players really young? I would almost want to blame this partially on the player that got coaxed
for automatically following through the effect of the supporter when the opponent was in the middle of
asking him a question about the card. That's borderline being naive. If it were me, I would have calmly
(giving the benefit of the doubt because this is a great Pokemon community) helped him out. And read
the card text with him explaining how the card works. Of course, if he's winning in prizes, and I know time
is running low, I would suspect a stall and probably call a judge. Either way, I would not have followed
through with the effect of the supporter before asking, "So... are you playing this card? or just asking me
a question about it?" If this was in a younger division, I can understand if a kid was easily tricked by this
manuever though.

If someone states their claydol is prized in an effort to bait a power spray, that person is not directly influencing the action of their opponent like the Admin incident. Comments made by a player on the state of their own "private deck" are not directly affecting an action. Playing an uxie really fast to beat a spray or taking an action in an attempt to gather information i.e. laying down a looker to elicit a response and then saying you never took your hand off the card. These are what I feel are the type of dishonest actions that ruin the game, not playing verbally mind games. Many of the legends of the game introduced me to this kind of mental distraction early on hoping to hedge their bets in a tight situation..... I don't see the harm there really.....

Agreed. Revealing cards to your opponent is quite different from bluffing. It should not be allowed.
And should not be grouped together with verbal bluffing.

No-one has a problem with that, obviously. In fact, you are only disadvantaging yourself by giving away the fact that you have a Spray. Why would you even need to keep looking at it anyway? Your opponent has to give you the opportunity to play it when they announce using their Power.

The problem comes when you DON'T have a Spray, but try and convince your opponent that you do. That's when the 'dubious action intended to deceive' rule can kick in.

Why? How is this dubious (in this context)?
He's just looking at a card in his hand. This doesn't tell anything. Maybe he's planning his next move
during the opponent's turn (in order to speed up his turn and game). It's up to my opponent to figure out
what I have in my card/deck and vice versa. People playing vs SP decks should never be secured
thinking they don't have Power Sprays in their hand until 4 has been used up.

Why are you staring at a Basic Energy in the first place?

You are trying to deceive your opponent.

That is against the rule that has been quoted several times already.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's right there in the rules . . . you do something like that, you risk a penalty.

I guess you could sit there and make yourself look like an idiot by arguing that you enjoy staring at Basic Energy, but I don't think that will go down too well.

This is hardly deceiving anyone. There are so many other things I can probably debate against, but this
one has to be one of the most innocent action claimed to be "dubious." I don't understand how looking at
a card gives away any sort of info. As it has been stated, the other player is just scaring himself. And it's
up to him to figure out if the opponent has a Power Spray (or ___ card) or not.

If it's a matter of ruling, then I find the ruling flawed. And it is something worth bringing up.


With all these extreme rules, it seems to take out the fun out of the TCG. It makes me not want to participate
in tournament play. Expressions and emotions are part of the game. I can have so much fun at a league
where my opponent's thinking hard which Gengar attack to use, while he looks at me, and I give him this
sly smile that reads, "Go ahead, I dare you to use Poltergeist." In some cases, I just flat out say it, cause
it's funny. And my opponent gets a good laugh, or just gets more nervous. I like how we can talk to each
other without the risk of someone claiming everything is some sort of dubious act just to gain an advantage.

It's true, with the stakes higher (in competitive play), the chances of someone "doing anything it takes to win
(even cheat/perform poor sportsmanship) will increase. So it's quite sad. If I'm not having fun playing this, then
I don't see why play at all.

I personally would never cheat or perform bad sportsmanship, because it ruins the game, and to me, winning
"illegally" is not winning at all. That being said, I feel bluffing is part of this game and a high level tactic, and should
not be grouped together as "dubious" act.

I found the humor in that :lol:

When read in context (after reading ALL of the serious posts before this one)

I, actually, laughted out loud.

Thank you for that :smile:

Of course, we have to qualify it by saying that "your opponent's hand is not public knowledge and it'd be the same thing as asking your opponent to tell you his decklist etc..." and, therefore, cannot be done. :/

Still.. your post was funny. :lol:

I should get a freebie GURU point. lol

 

[Xuii2-the-cleric]

i use reverse psycoligy

 

[billbilski]

As usual Rob, you are improper - Although the mulligan thing is VERY common, I've always been to lazy to go through the whole charade.... What if I'm playing SP with no mewtwo counter and I know my opponent is playing Mewtwo - I say to friends nearby so my opponent can hear-"I'm loving ninetails right now"- just to discourage the aggro mewtwo play... Penalty? No lying, but clearly an intent to change an opponents strategy via misinformation.... What if during a game I make a comment like - "I wish I could KO that tank - I'd need a crobat drop, three plus powers and a belt - that's insane(all done with DeNiro's acting skills in an attempt to discourage a retreat)" I of course am sitting on everything... Penalty? Unsportsmanlike? I'm guessing the former would be less tolerated and the latter more accepted, but things can get awful grey..... I have NEVER seen a judge rule on these type of bluffs or misinformation in 6 years, so I highly doubt this topic is in reality, a major issue... Of course, in our usual circle of serious players during cities etc.... alot of this is happening between people who respect each other and understand some of the "gamesmanship" is often the most fun of all and is generally mutual in nature. At Nats for example, I would never make the smart alek comments I would make with the players I'm around all the time... There is a time and a place for everything.....If I'm playing Big Chuck - the gloves are off baby lol.....

 

[AzNightmare]

As usual Rob, you are improper - Although the mulligan thing is VERY common, I've always been to lazy to go through the whole charade.... What if I'm playing SP with no mewtwo counter and I know my opponent is playing Mewtwo - I say to friends nearby so my opponent can hear-"I'm loving ninetails right now"- just to discourage the aggro mewtwo play... Penalty? No lying, but clearly an intent to change an opponents strategy via misinformation.... What if during a game I make a comment like - "I wish I could KO that tank - I'd need a crobat drop, three plus powers and a belt - that's insane(all done with DeNiro's acting skills in an attempt to discourage a retreat)" I of course am sitting on everything... Penalty? Unsportsmanlike? I'm guessing the former would be less tolerated and the latter more accepted, but things can get awful grey..... I have NEVER seen a judge rule on these type of bluffs or misinformation in 6 years, so I highly doubt this topic is in reality, a major issue... Of course, in our usual circle of serious players during cities etc.... alot of this is happening between people who respect each other and understand some of the "gamesmanship" is often the most fun of all and is generally mutual in nature. At Nats for example, I would never make the smart alek comments I would make with the players I'm around all the time... There is a time and a place for everything.....If I'm playing Big Chuck - the gloves are off baby lol.....

This is my personal take:
Talking to people outside of the game (so in this case, anyone but your opponent) should be discouraged.
It's a distraction during your opponent's turn / stalling during your own turn.

What you say to the opponent is up to the opponent to consider. He needs to read you to see if you really
play Crobats in your deck. Does it make logical deck building sense? That being said, a good player
would have already considered many variables, so your "surprise" may not really be all that surprising
if you gave him false info about your deck.

i use reverse psycoligy

It seems like reverse psychology is quite frowned upon according to this thread, or any sort of psychology for this matter.

 

[baby mario]

Why? How is this dubious (in this context)?
He's just looking at a card in his hand. This doesn't tell anything. Maybe he's planning his next move
during the opponent's turn (in order to speed up his turn and game). It's up to my opponent to figure out
what I have in my card/deck and vice versa. People playing vs SP decks should never be secured
thinking they don't have Power Sprays in their hand until 4 has been used up.

If they are just looking at a card to play next turn, then they aren't trying to deceive their opponent and there is no problem.

You can argue all you like that a player shouldn't fall for this trick. It doesn't actually matter whether they do or don't. The rule is against actions that are 'intended' to deceive. It says nothing about it having to be successful.

It doesn't really matter whether I agree with the rule or not. Likewise it doesn't matter if I want bluffing to be a part of the game or not. As a player, I have to do everything I can to follow the rules if I don't want to be penalized. It seems to me that trying to fool my opponent into thinking I am holding a Spray means I am risking a penalty, so I am just not going to do it.

 

[DukeFireBird]

since when does looking at your hand constitute a penalty? Regardless of what card(s) you are looking at, you are privy to your hand contents, no matter the situation.

Alot of you are looking very foolish with some of the examples and defenses stated here.

The KISS method works extremely well!

Games should all be played with the cards, and I personally hate bluffing, but that doesn't mean I wont do it either.

Ill give you all an example of what I do.

---My opponent plays a Roseanne's/Bebe's and gets a specific Pokemon. I rearrange the cards in my hand to easily make out my next turns actions from what I am given.

In that scenario, is there any bluffing? Is there any notification of what I am going to try to do next turn? Could I be doing that just cause I am bored, or fidgety?

You all are looking way too deeply into this.

The best thing to do is ask yourself... Would you want your opponent to do this to you? If the answer is no, then DONT DO IT.

 

[idahodarkhorsejustbelieve]

honestly it a part of the game today in the master divsion, most of us dont play bc where nerdy kids we play to win trips like to hawii and for those big schoolarships let face it if someone us need that money to goto collage very badly.

 

[PokePop]

Any over-zealous judge could easily pounce on a player for no reason.

Over zealous judges love pouncing.
They will keep pouncing.
It's not a matter of delineating more rules, it's a matter of teaching them the philosophy of why the rules are there. What are they trying to accomplish.