How do you determine whether a positive comparison is true in a Two-Headed Giant game?

In a Two-Headed Giant game, each team consists of two players working together against another team. When determining the truth of a positive comparison—such as evaluating the life totals or permanents of the two teams—it's essential that the comparison reflects the collective status of both players on a team.

The correct approach is to ensure that asking the same question of either player yields a consistent answer of ‘yes.’ This method maintains clarity and accuracy, as both players must have a shared understanding of the game state for the comparison to be valid. If one player indicates 'yes' and the other does not, it could lead to confusion and miscommunication, undermining the cooperative nature of the format.

In contrast, while player consensus is important, this is not an agreement-based process (as in the first choice) but rather one of representation of shared knowledge. Only one player answering (as considered in the third choice) does not encompass the collaboration required in Two-Headed Giant format. Lastly, while the number of permanents could influence certain game-related decisions, it doesn't serve as a basis for determining truth in a positive comparison itself. The focus is on the cooperative assessment that aligns both players’ perspectives.