A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.
牌手违反了于《万智牌比赛规则》之第4.1节详述的牌手交流原则。此违规仅适用于违反了前述原则的情况，一般情况下的沟通不清并不适用此违规。
If there was an award for the most incorrectly given infraction, Communication Policy Violation would have a shelf in its living room cluttered with them. It is a common misconception that any time there is a miscommunication between players it's a Communication Policy Violation. It was so commonly misunderstood that in Feb 2013 the infraction was renamed from “Player Communication Violation” to “Communication Policy Violation” to help drive home the point that we are talking a specific policy violation and not general problems with player communication. This infraction covers violations of the Communication Policy in the Magic Tournament Rules (section 4.1) which is summarized in the philosophy section below.
如果IPG有个“最多误用奖”的话，违反交流原则得的奖杯绝对能摆满一书架。一个常见的误读是：只要牌手之间的交流出现了误解那么就是违反交流原则。这个误读实在太常见了，以至于在2013年2月这条从“牌手交流违规”更名为“违反交流原则”，这样能够帮助裁判理解这一条针对的是违反一条特定的方针，而不是一般的牌手间交流问题。这项违规囊括了违反MTR 4.1中所述的交流原则的行为，这些行为被总结在了接下来的原则部分中。
Note that a new addition to the Magic Tournament Rules section 4.2 relating to not assuming your opponent has taken a shortcut also falls under this infraction. Expect this definition to be updated in the next version.
注意，MTR第4.2节新加入了一条关于不能假设你的对手采取简化方式行事的规则，与之相关的违规也属于本违规。请等待下一版本中此违规定义的更新。

A. A player is asked how many cards he has in his hand and answers “Three.” A few moments later, he realizes that he has four.
A. 牌手被问及手牌有几张，回答“三”。片刻之后，他发现应该是四张。
B. A player claims she hasn’t played her land for the turn, but it is determined that she had and forgot.
B. 牌手主张他本回合还没使用过这回合可使用的地，但是经判定只是他忘记自己已使用过。
In the first example, we have a situation where a player was incorrect about derived information. In the second example, we have the player being incorrect about free information. These two types of examples are the most common. Note that neither of these examples involves a situation where one player thought he heard his opponent say something else, or confusion about what step or phase they are in.
在第一个例子中，一位牌手弄错了推断信息。第二个例子中，牌手弄错了自由信息。这两个例子属于此违规中最为常见的类型。注意这两个例子都与下面两种情形无关：一位牌手听错了对手说的一些东西、或者不知道自己处在哪个游戏阶段或步骤中。

Clear communication is essential when playing Magic. Though many offenses will be intentional, it is possible for a player to make a genuine mistake and these should not be penalized harshly. Refer to section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules for a full explanation of the policy. It can be summarized as:
交流通畅是顺利进行万智牌游戏的关键要素。虽然这类违规多为蓄意，但仍有可能牌手犯下的是无心之失；在这种状况下，便不该给予严厉的处罚。
We all agree that playing magic face to face is quite different from playing Magic Online on a computer. Clear communication should help players express their thoughts and ensure that the game can be played. We want players to talk to each other. We want them to communicate. But players are human, and they will make mistakes. For those wrong answers which you believe are unintentional, the player should be given a Warning. We don't want a more severe penalty, because we don't want players scared to communicate with each other for fear of getting a penalty.
我们都知道面对面的玩万智牌跟你在电脑上玩Magic Online是有很大不同的。清楚明白的交流可以帮助牌手们准确表达他们想要做的游戏动作，让游戏顺利进行。我们希望牌手间能够用语言进行交流。但是大家都是人，都会犯错误。对于你认为牌手因为无心之失而回答的错误答案，应该给予警告的处罚。我们不想给出严厉的处罚，因为我们不想牌手因为怕吃到判罚而惧于跟对手交流。
欲知牌手交流原则之完整说明，请参照《万智牌比赛规则》之第4.1节。此原则可概述如下：

• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• 牌手必须完整、诚实地回答裁判询问他们的所有问题，无论裁判询问的信息类型为何。牌手可请求在远离对战区域的地方回答问题。
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• 牌手不得对推断信息和自由信息进行错误表现。
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• 牌手必须完整、诚实地回答有关于自由信息的明确询问。
The policy is a bit more complicated than the summary above, so I urge you to read it. In short, the Communication Policy in the MTR governs what information players must provide their opponents with. A player can withhold some information from his or her opponent, but not from a judge. Judges expect (and can require) players to answer their questions. If you answer a question/or make a statement about free or derived information, it must be correct. If a player is asked about free information, he or she must answer completely and truthfully. If asked about derived information, the player is only required to be truthful to the opponent, but does not have to answer completely.
这个原则其实要比上面总结的复杂一点点，所以我强烈建议你去读一下MTR中的相关部分。简单来说，MTR中的交流原则规定了哪些信息是牌手必须要提供给对手的。牌手可以保留一些信息不告诉对手，但是不能不告诉裁判。裁判期望（并且可以要求）牌手能够回答裁判提出的问题。如果你回答了一个包含推断/自由信息的问题或者叙述了推断/自由信息，那你必须保证你说的是正确的。如果一位牌手被问到了自由信息，那么他必须完整诚实的回答它。如果是问的推断信息，那么牌手对对手的回答只需要诚实，而不必回答的全面。

A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to him or her by his or her opponent. The backup should be to the point of the action, not the erroneous communication.
如果明显属于牌手根据对手提供的错误信息采取行动的情形，则可考虑倒回。倒回时应倒回至执行动作的时点，而非产生错误交流的时点。
Sometimes a Communication Policy Violation doesn’t matter. Sometimes it does. Typically you, as judge, will only get calls “when it matters,” and will need to consider a rewind. If I ask you what the power/toughness of your creature is, and you say “2/3,” I can feel safe attacking with my 3/3. But if we discover during declare blockers that it’s a 3/4, well, I would have done things differently had you answered correctly. I based my decision on information you provided me, since I should be able to expect honest answers about certain things. This wasn’t a case where I made a play mistake or a strategic error. In the the case where it is clear that a player took actions based on the incorrect data, then a rewind, as outlined in IPG 1.4 Backing Up, can be considered.
有些违反交流原则的行为并不会影响局面，但是另一些会。通常来说，裁判只会在交流问题会影响局面的时候才会被叫过去。这时裁判需要考虑是否倒回。如果我问你那个生物是几几的，你说“2/3”，然后我就放心的拿3/3人宣攻了。但是在宣告阻挡者时我们发现，这个生物其实是3/4的，那么如果你正确回答我的问题我就不会宣攻了。因为我本应期望你对于一些事物的回答是诚实的，因此我的选择是基于你给出的信息做出。这与我出现行动失误或者犯了战术错误是不一样的。如果牌手的行动显然是基于对手给出的错误信息作出的，那么可以根据IPG的1.4的内容进行倒回。