As many before me, I'm torn in two directions here.
On the one hand, if we stick to the IPG, this is a clear case of Improper Drawing at Start of Game, which we give a warning to and shuffle two random cards from the pool including the face down card back into their deck.
However, there's a part of me that says nothing bad happened, and we should just put the unrevealed card back into the library, either shuffling it in or just putting it on top.
However, that would be a deviation, and I don't think this qualifies as “Extraordinary circumstances”, so even though they may have effectively done nothing wrong, they have technically done something wrong, and consistency here I think outweighs the customer service of deviating, especially given the fact that the penalty is fairly minor.

If we're going to nitpick about the CR verbage word for word, let's break it down.

“120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that
player performs that many individual card draws.”

“120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand.”

“103.3. Once the starting player has been determined, each player sets his or her life total to 20 and
draws a hand of seven cards.”

Technically, 103 is not telling the player to draw seven cards to make a hand, it's telling the player to draw a hand of seven cards. However, using the assumption that the words “Draw, seven, cards” are written, you're supposed to draw from the top down. So, oops for her.

What's the infraction? GRV? Technically, yeah, she committed a GRV. But since this was made during drawing at the start of the game, let's look at that infraction. In the IPG, the first words under “Improper Draw at Start of Game” read:

“A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand”

Well, there you go. She made an error drawing her opening hand. The error was not drawing 6 cards from the top down. Take all 7 cards, shuffle them up, randomly put 2 back on top, warning for Anita, please continue.

Now, as far as shortcuts go, if the players said “Hey, lets set aside the top card and draw starting with card position 2 for the opening hands.” then sure, there's a shortcut. Otherwise, as Milan said, you wouldn't allow other forms of reordering the draws, you shouldn't allow this one either.

On 27/08/2014 21:46, Joshua Feingold wrote:
>
> Just a reminder that we would like L2+ to wait until Friday to respond.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/77780/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>
I still am of the opinion that counting cards face down is NOT drawing
the cards. The deck was randomised and the player actually drew 6 cards
into his hand. Therefore there is no penalty and the remaining card
should be put back on the top of the library.

Graham

Originally posted by Justin Murphy:

Take all 7 cards, shuffle them up, randomly put 2 back on top, warning for Anita, please continue.

I don't think the 7th card (the one that's still face down on the table) should be put with the 6 cards in hand before putting back two random cards. That 7th card was never drawn, and even though it's on the table away from the rest of her library, it's technically still in the library.

The IPG says to remove random cards equal to the number of excess drawn cards plus one. The number of excess cards drawn is zero, so we should put one random card from Anita's hand back in the library, and then shuffle it. The shuffling will then also include the 7th card.

I feel like the issue hidden behind this innoncent scenario is that after the shuffling of the opponent, you did a library manipulation (let's suppose it is an innoncent move for the KP) WHITHOUT letting your opponent chose whether he wants to shuffle again your deck. Thus, isn't it a violation of the MTR 2.3?
I honnestly do not see that as an improper drawing.

On 28/08/2014 12:08, Ernst Jan Plugge wrote:
>
> /Justin Murphy/
> Take all 7 cards, shuffle them up, randomly put 2 back on top,
> warning for Anita, please continue.
>
> I don't think the 7th card (the one that's still face down on the
> table) should be put with the 6 cards in hand before putting back two
> random cards. That 7th card was never drawn, and even though it's on
> the table away from the rest of her library, it's technically still in
> the library.
>
> The IPG says to remove random cards equal to the number of excess
> drawn cards plus one. The number of excess cards drawn is zero, so we
> should put one random card from Anita's hand back in the library, and
> then shuffle it. The shuffling will then also include the 7th card.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/77894/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/12166/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
How has she then drawn excess cards? In your analysis she has drew 6
cards the correct number she is supposed to draw?

Graham

Hey!

Here goes my opinion on the topic.
I believe that altering the order of the drawing at the start of the game (2-7 instead of 1-6) does not fit in the GPE-L@EC (the player has not seen the other card) or GPE-DEC (the player has drawn 6 and not 7 cards).
So, the action seems to me a GPE-ID@SofG, due to the alteration of drawing (2-7 instead of 1-6).
The sanction would be a W.
I believe that what happened is not very relevant for the game, because the randomization of the deck poses no advantage of drawing 2-7 instead of 1-6 in theory.
If advantage due to change in draw order is possible then an investigation should be conducted.
My fix would be shuffling the card on the table into the player's library and allow the game to start.

All the best!

Originally posted by Graham Theobalds:

How has she then drawn excess cards? In your analysis she has drew 6
cards the correct number she is supposed to draw?

She has not drawn any excess cards. She was supposed to draw 6 and she has drawn 6. The infraction is that she drew the wrong 6 cards: she should have drawn the top 6 cards of her library, but she drew cards 2-7, leaving the top card undrawn.

From the IPG:

IPG 2.4
A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand, or the starting player does not skip the first draw step.

There doesn't have to be an excess (or insufficient) number of card draws for this infraction to apply. There was an error during the draw, that's enough. The fix talks about the number excess cards, but since there are no excess cards drawn, this number is zero.

Originally posted by Ernst Jan Plugge:

The fix talks about the number excess cards, but since there are no excess cards drawn, this number is zero.

Talks about the excess plus one.
“Otherwise, remove a number of cards, chosen randomly, equal to the excess plus one from the player’s hand and shuffle them into his or her library.”

The definition of Improper Draw says that the player drew the wrong number of cards. Not draw in the wrong order.

I think we may be getting caught in the axles with it being before a visible action has been taken, that people are saying Improper Draw.

If, on round 3, she draws the second card (assuming no cheating) what would we do?

Edited Darren Horve (Aug. 28, 2014 09:06:35 AM)

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

The definition of Improper Draw says that the player drew the wrong number of cards. Not draw in the wrong order.

Where???

“2.4. Game Play Error — Improper Drawing at Start of Game
Definition
A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand, or the starting player does not skip the first draw step. If this error is discovered after the player committing it has taken another action in the game, the infraction is Drawing Extra Cards.”

I understand that makes an error isn't draw a incorrect number, is that makes the draw incorrectly. And in the CR:
"120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand.”
Other thing different that put the top card is make it wrong.
If you have to draw 6 cards, you have to draw the top card 6 times, no 6 cards of your deck in any order.

Ok, in the examples isn't contemplate this situation, but one important thing, the IPG doesn't study for examples. These are only to help us. In fact, the examples only talk about incorrect number, but the definition talks about draw incorrectly.

Edited Francisco J. Riveiro (Aug. 28, 2014 09:16:42 AM)

The only definition given for Improper Drawing is that the player either “makes an error” or doesn't skip the draw step when going first. The Examples given for common errors aren't part of that definition, and no list of Examples in the IPG is meant to be exhaustive.

The penalty is a Warning for IDaSoG. A Game Rule was Violated, but GRV is for problems that don't already fit into any other GPE category. Anita is supposed to have 6 cards in her hand, and she does, so the partial fix shuffles 0 + 1 = 1 of those at random back into the library (along with the unseen 7th card).

It might be worth mentioning that the definition of IDASOG has recently changed. I'm using the July 2014 update.

The previous version specifically mentions “A player draws the wrong number of cards during pregame procedures, or does not skip their draw step while playing first.” (February 2014 version). The current version just refers to errors made while drawing the opening hand in general, without mentioning the number of cards drawn.

In this particular scenario, the difference is relevant.

Looking at the MTR (2.3.5):
“Each player draws seven cards. Optionally, these cards may be dealt face down on the table.”

Based on this, I would call the act of dealing out the seven cards the same as drawing all seven. Therefore, this situation would easily fall under ID@SoG.

*My Opinion*
The act of dealing out cards gives the player one last chance to count how many they drew. The last chance they have to fix this number is immediately after dealing them out, before they start putting cards in their hand. Once the first card is looked at, this becomes ID@SoG.

Originally posted by Francisco J. Riveiro:

Where???

Judge42 App - which is what I use.

“A player draws the wrong number of cards during pregame procedures, or does not skip their draw step while playing first. This infraction is only issued before that player takes a visible legal action during the damge; if discovered after that point, the infraction is Drawing Extra Cards”

HOWEVER - I just downloaded MTG Judge Core App and it does state what you are quoting.

Hmmm… why two different definitions.

Well - off to the internets to get the actual verbage!

UPDATE: Downloaded the IPG PDF from WotC site. ID@SG has the Judge 42 definition.

Edited Darren Horve (Aug. 28, 2014 11:21:54 AM)