警告是有正式记录的处罚。
A Warning needs to be tracked and judges should write it down on the back of the result slips (if you are using them). Then the Scorekeeper will input the warning penalty into WER to let Wizards of the Coast track the infraction. Both the Scorekeeper and the player need to be aware of the penalty. Scorekeepers can notify you when a player is close to an upgrade, and players need to be aware of how many penalties they have.
“警告”需要被记录，裁判也应该将它写在成绩条的背面（如果使用成绩条的话）。记分员将会将这个警告处罚记录在WER内，上报给威世智来记录这次违规。记分员和被警告的牌手都应知道警告的内容。记分员可以在该牌手的判罚接近升级次数的时候提醒裁判，同时该牌手也需要知晓自己已经受到了几个判罚。

All Disqualifications should be reported to the Investigations Committee by using the Judge Center. The player’s statement and the Head Judge’s brief report are needed. The testimonies of spectators are optional. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=judge/article/20091207a is a pretty good article on the ‘paperwork’ aspect of a Disqualification.
所有的取消资格都应该使用裁判中心上报给调查委员会，其中必须包括牌手的陈述和主审的报告。报告中也可以包括旁观者的证词。
Here is a pretty good article on the ‘paperwork’ aspect of a Disqualification.
这里是一篇关于DQ“文书工作”非常好的文章。

Three types of triggered abilities do not expire and resolve immediately if they are discovered:
以下三类触发式异能不会逾期，且会在发现之后立即结算：

• A triggered ability that specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”). The opponent may choose not to resolve this trigger. Otherwise the default action must be chosen.
• 指定了某个预设的动作，且此动作包含其操控者应作的某个选择（通常是“若你未如此作…”或“除非…”）之触发式异能。对手可以选择不结算此触发。否则便须以“选择执行预设动作”来结算。
“Oh, you drew before paying your echo cost? That’s cool, just sacrifice your guy now” is the way that casual players have handled this kind of error for years — this piece of policy has significant precedent. Indeed, much of policy is built around the pre-existing habits and expectations of players. The above sentence is one of the most clear-cut examples of this in the entire IPG.
“哦，你付返响费用之前就抓牌了？抱歉，牺牲了吧”在过去数年中，这便是娱乐牌手们修正此类错误的方法——这也是制定这项方针时所参考的先例。事实上，很多方针都是根据牌手的习惯和期望而制定的。上面这句话是IPG中最清晰易懂的例子之一。
Examples: Masticore, Pact of Negation, Transguild Promenade. If the opponent doesn’t want the default action to resolve they can choose not to have it resolve. We will see the next two sentences detail how to “resolve it.”
例如：异狮、逸散条约、跨公会步道。如果对手不想让预设动作结算的话，他可以选择不让其结算。下两句话会详细说明如何“结算之”。

This infraction does not apply to simple dexterity errors, such as when a card being pulled off the library sticks to another card and is seen or knocked off the library. The cards themselves must be part of a distinct set intended by the player.
此违规不适用于单纯因手脚笨拙导致的失误，例如从牌库抽取牌张时不慎粘连或碰翻其他牌张而看到牌面等情况。此违规仅针对牌手有意将之置于有显著区隔之牌叠中的牌张本身。
These lines are here to give a distinction between when a player action should be considered Hidden Card Error versus Looking at Extra Cards. If we go back to Dig Through Time as an example, if a player resolving this spell looks at eight cards rather than seven, we have the wrong number in the set. This is Hidden Card Error, as the set contains a card it should not, and that set is hidden. If, however, during the resolution of Dig Through Time, a player looks at seven cards, but knocks the eighth card off the deck while picking up those seven, then that eighth card is not a part of the set, and should be treated as a Looking at Extra Cards infraction.
这句话是用来区分牌手的行为是属于非公开牌张失误还是额外看牌的。我们再拿历时挖掘举个例子，如果牌手在结算该咒语时检视了八张而不是七张牌，牌叠中的牌数量便是不正确的。这就是非公开牌张失误，因为牌叠中有一张牌是不应该在这个牌叠中的，且该牌叠是非公开的。然而，如果在历时挖掘结算过程中，牌手检视了七张牌，却不小心在拿起这七张牌时把第八张牌碰掉了，那么这第八张牌便不是牌叠的一部分，且应该使用额外看牌处理该违规。
Additionally, if I go to scry one card, and I accidentally pick up two, I have potentially committed Looking at Extra Cards. This line does require a bit of common sense, as defining an exact technical line between Hidden Card Error and Looking at Extra Cards is problematic.
进一步说，如果我应该占卜一张牌，却不小心拿起了两张牌，我可能也犯下了额外看牌。由于定义非公开牌张失误和额外看牌之间的明确界限可能会带来更大的问题，判断这两个违规的界限需要一定的常识判断力。

In addition to being on time for a match, a player is expected to be on-time, with his or her stuff. You need to be able to start playing. Both the player and the deck need to be there in order to start playing. Now in this case, if a player loses a card or two, and calls us and informs us at the beginning of the round, there is a clause in the IPG that allows us to downgrade — if a “player commits an offense and calls a judge over immediately and before he or she could potentially benefit…” This clause is probably going to apply, and allow the Head Judge to downgrade to a Warning without it being a deviation. Inform the player that he or she has 10 minutes to find the cards or replace them with basic lands (see Deck/Decklist Problem), otherwise he or she will receive the upgraded Tardiness (Match Loss) penalty.
牌手除了应该准时进行对局以外，还应该保管好自己的物品。你需要让自己能够开始对局。为了开始对局，牌手和套牌都应该准时到场。在这种情况中，如果牌手丢了一两张牌，然后在下一轮开始的时候及时叫了裁判，那么就有一条可以让我们降级处罚的条文——“如果牌手犯规后自行发现此状况，并且立刻在自己可能从犯规中获益之前通知裁判…”这条方针有可能可以应用，让主审可以将处罚降级为警告而不算作不依方针行事。同时应当告知这位牌手他有10分钟的时间来找回他遗失的牌，或将其换为基本地（参见套牌/套牌登记表问题），若超过此时限则将受到升级的迟到判罚（一局负）。

When the sideboard has too many cards in it, you can’t just take the players word on what cards they intended to play; that allows sideboard customization after they have had a chance to see the field. In this case, just remove the extra cards (from the list and the deck) starting at the bottom and working up until you reach the correct number.
当备牌中牌张过多时，不能听信牌手说哪些牌是他本来想用的；这会让他们有机会根据赛场环境来定制备牌。在这种情况下，应从套牌登记表的最下面开始移除多余的牌张（同时从牌表和套牌中移除），直到减少至正确的数量。

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。

...
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。

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。

A player who receives an offer and does not immediately contact a tournament official is considered complicit in the offer and will receive the same penalty.
如果收受提议之牌手未立刻联系比赛工作人员，则视为该牌手默许对手提议，会受到同样的处罚。
Players are also expected to immediately call a judge if their opponent offers to determine the outcome of a game or match. Failing to do so will result in both players receiving the same penalty.
如果对手提议用不当方法决定一盘或一局游戏的结果，牌手应当立即呼叫裁判。如果牌手未如此做，会导致两位牌手受到同样的判罚。

What are actions that are “not part of the current game”? The IPG provides some helpful examples:
什么行为不是当前游戏的的一部分？IPG给了一些有用的例子：

In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as an inappropriate suggestion to determine the winner is made.
在大部分的情况下，此处罚会给予双方牌手；除非另一位牌手在对方作出提议以不当方式决定胜方时，就立刻请裁判过来。
Players are always expected to call violations of the rules to the attention of a judge. This applies to Unsporting Conduct penalties just as much as it does to Game Play Errors.
我们总是期望牌手在发现违反规则的情况时主动呼叫裁判。这一点无论对于游戏行动失误还是举止违背运动道德都是一样的。
The IPG doesn't distinguish between the player that offered to use an illegal method and the player who accepted the proposal. Both have committed essentially the same infraction, and they receive the same penalty. Although the two situations may be handled differently by the Investigations Committee, both players have crossed the threshold of compromising the event, and consequently both must receive Disqualifications.
IPG不区别对待提出非法方式决定胜者和接受此建议的牌手。他们本质上都触犯了相同的违规，并且他们要受到相同的判罚。尽管调查委员会对两种情况的处理可能有所不同，但双方牌手都危害了比赛，因此都必须被取消资格。
But why? Doesn’t it seem harsh that the player hearing the offer gets the same penalty as the one making the offer? It does, until you realize that not enforcing the requirement to immediately call a judge leads to the possibility that a player can be seriously considering the offer, or even accept it — perhaps with just a nod or some other signal — then claim that they were going to refuse when a judge is called.
但是为什么？是不是听到提议的牌手要受到相同的判罚看来太严厉了？虽然看起来是这样，但如果你意识到不要求牌手必须立刻呼叫裁判，将导致牌手可能会认真考虑不当决定胜方的提议，甚至是接受它——可能只是点头或者其他的方式——然后在裁判被叫来时声称他们准备拒绝提议。
As with any Disqualification, you need to collect statements from the players.
任何取消资格的判罚都需要收集牌手的陈述。

A player who receives an offer and does not immediately contact a tournament official is considered complicit in the offer and will receive the same penalty.
如果收受提议之牌手未立刻联系比赛工作人员，则视为该牌手默许对手提议，会受到同样的处罚。
Players are also expected to immediately call a judge if their opponent offers a bribe or a wager. Failing to do so will result in both players receiving the same penalty.
如果对手提议进行贿赂或赌博，牌手应当立即呼叫裁判。如果牌手未如此做，会导致两位牌手受到同样的判罚。

So why a disqualification? There are a few reasons. One is that Wizards of the Coast wants to impose a hard line on anything that makes Magic resemble gambling. Some countries/venues have very strict laws about gambling, and might not allow a Magic event. But why a Disqualification? Why not a Match Loss or a Warning? Let's look at a player's motivation. Two players are tied at the end of the round and are playing in a match where a draw knocks both of them out of Top 8 (or Day 2). If one of them wins, he or she is in. In that case, if they draw or lose, their day is done. So only the most severe penalties will discourage the last ditch effort to make Top 8.
为什么要取消资格呢？原因有几个。一个是威世智极力避免任何会让万智牌看起来像赌博的行为。有些国家或特定场馆对于赌博有着非常严格的法律或规定，可能会因为此类行为而不允许举办万智牌赛事。但是为什么是取消资格？为什么不是一局负或者一个警告？让我们思考一下牌手的动机。两位牌手在一轮比赛结束时打平并且平局将导致双方都参加不了八强淘汰赛或者第二天的比赛。如果其中一人获胜，他/她能得到资格。如果他们打平或者输掉，他们的比赛就结束了。所以只有最严厉的判罚能够阻止他们用这种最后的努力挤进八强。

If a player is offered a bribe, the player must report the offer to a judge immediately, or they will receive the same penalty as the player who made the offer. This may seem draconian, but there are several reasons for this. One of the largest is that it increases the risk to the player making the offer if the other player must turn them in.
如果一位牌手的对手想要贿赂他/她，该牌手必须立刻报告裁判，否则他们会受到与意图贿赂者相同的判罚。这看起来可能过于严厉，但这样做是有很多原因的。其中最主要的原因就是这样做会增加提出贿赂的牌手的风险——对手很可能会报告给裁判。

with a Disqualification, and even the act of not reporting this could result in a penalty if a player were offered a bribe. It doesn’t matter if they had no intention of ever accepting the offer, if the offer wasn’t serious, or if the person making the offer is the player's friend. Once the offer is out there, there’s no way to tell if it was or wasn’t influencing the player's decision. And there’s no way to know if that person will or won’t make that same offer again to someone else.

是取消资格，并且收到提议的牌手没有立刻报告的话也会导致此判罚。牌手有没有接受的意图、提议是不是认真提出的、或者提议的人是不是此牌手的朋友，都是无关紧要的。一旦某牌手提出了这种提议，我们无法知道此人是否会对他人再次做出相同的提议。

• http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Basics_of_Investigations • http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Investigations_(Seminar) • http://judgecast.com/?p=408 for some initial pointers. Please note, each of these sources were created before Cheating infractions were consolidated.
这些文章是学习调查的入门材料。请注意，这些文章都是在作弊违规未统一前创作的。