I had fun with a call this weekend and I'm very curious how others would handle the situation.

You are judging a Comp REL Legacy event, and are called to a table. You see a graveyard pile on one side of the table with at least a dozen face up cards in it, fanned out. The player's library is next to that graveyard. There is a single face down card on top of the graveyard.

“We don't know where that card came from. It was either accidentally knocked off of the library, or it's a graveyard card that was accidentally turned over. We don't want to look at it and risk a Looking At Extra Cards infraction. What do we do?”

The graveyard pile is messy enough that both options seem realistic. Both players agree on the story as they told it to you, and you see no reason to doubt their story. How do you handle the situation?

It's looking at extra cards already if it's part of the library.

“Players are considered to have looked at a card when they
have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck,
but before it touches the other cards in their hand.”

I'd find out if they know any portion of the library, and try to figure out if the graveyard is missing a card if you discount the facedown card. If you can't tell, I guess I would assume it's part of the library and shuffle it in with the unknown portion, but it could easily go either way.

Can you say it was moved ‘a significant amount’ if the library and the graveyard are right next to each other? The distance between the face down card and the library was something like 5cm/2in, maybe slightly more, with the library, graveyard and exile zones arranged in a typical manner, close to each other on one side of the table.

The fact that it's ambiguous whether the card belongs to the library or the graveyard shows the amount is significant =)

I feel like that section of the IPG is trying to capture the moment in which a player is drawing a card illegally, but catches themselves before they complete the draw; hence the reference to a player's hand.

When a player (or in this case, two) is trying their best to call you over explicitly to *avoid* looking at extra cards (and also Looking At Extra Cards), it seems to me disingenuous to give them the penalty based on a strict reading of the IPG.

If you can return the card to the library (or determine it belongs in the graveyard) without disruption, do so. I agree with Dan that you probably should err on the side of “it was dropped from the library” if you can't be totally sure either way.

Jack

Originally posted by Jack Doyle:

If you can return the card to the library (or determine it belongs in the graveyard) without disruption, do so. I agree with Dan that you probably should err on the side of “it was dropped from the library” if you can't be totally sure either way.

…and then perhaps stay by the table, waiting for the possible “Judge! I just drew that card we put on top of the library, and it definitely should have been in the graveyard.”

Originally posted by Alex Roebuck:

…and then perhaps stay by the table, waiting for the possible “Judge! I just drew that card we put on top of the library, and it definitely should have been in the graveyard.”

One way to make sure that the card belongs to either library or graveyard is to count the cards on the battlefields/in hands/in exile. Just make sure to find out who was on play/draw, if there were any mulligans and that you take all the (inevitable in Legacy) fetchlands and card drawing effects into consideration. If the card in question is “extra”, then it probably belongs in the library. If you do it before putting the card back, you shouldn't get the follow-up you mentioned.

Piotr the spread out graveyard mostly happens in dredge decks so reconstituting what should be where might be somehow difficult…

Well yeah, you have to use your judgment. If it's too complicated, then just put the card on the top of library and ask both players to pay closer attention to what happens. Hiwever if it's possible to reconstruct the proper state without too much disruption, I'd say do it.

I would argue that the line in the IPG saying that a card a significant distance from the library is L@EC means that a card face down on the table right next to the library (touching it even) should be considered looked at. If it's not in the pile that is the library without good reason, (like a scry effect) then something is wrong.

Originally posted by the players:

We don't want to … risk a Looking At Extra Cards infraction

The players have done the right thing here, and it's fairly clear that neither of them know what that face-down card might be. However, the definition for L@EC goes on to specify “This includes errors of dexterity…” - which is the most likely explanation here.

So, let's take a moment to reassure them that a L@EC infraction isn't the end of the world; find out why they're trying to avoid it, educate them a bit about infractions, and then point out that bit about errors of dexterity.

If it's just not feasible to review the game state and actions taken, to determine if it's a GY or Library card, and if the player doesn't notice anything missing from his/her graveyard, and your investigation & understanding of the game state & knowledge of that mystery card don't lead to Cheating, then it's fine to assume it must belong in the library, and the L@EC remedy should be used here, for all the reasons it makes sense when a card is seen, or **might have been** seen.

A similar scenario occurs much more often - a player drops a card while shuffling his opponent's deck. He immediately freezes up - we've all seen this! - and calls for a judge. He explains that he knows he dropped a card, but he doesn't want to look down - you can almost see his neck muscles tense up, making sure he's looking up & not down, and not looking at anything.

At this point, I usually say something like “here, I'll get that for you” and then, after carefully putting it back into the deck unseen, I'll continue “you know, L@EC is really only a problem if there's a suspicious pattern to how and when you're doing that; since I can't KNOW that you didn't see it - even though I believe you! - I'll have to record the infraction. Just be careful shuffling the rest of the day, it shouldn't be a problem.”

A similar explanation would be in order in the original scenario - but the infraction probably does need to be recorded. After all, the people we do need to worry about - i.e., those repeatedly angle-shooting various infractions - are also the most likely to beg you to NOT record a “silly little mistake” like this… honest players have nothing to worry about.

d:^D

Part of the education I give players who are concerned about warnings is “If I thought you were doing something shady, we'd be having an completely different discussion.”

Originally posted by Piotr Łopaciuk:

Alex Roebuck
…and then perhaps stay by the table, waiting for the possible “Judge! I just drew that card we put on top of the library, and it definitely should have been in the graveyard.”

One way to make sure that the card belongs to either library or graveyard is to count the cards on the battlefields/in hands/in exile. Just make sure to find out who was on play/draw, if there were any mulligans and that you take all the (inevitable in Legacy) fetchlands and card drawing effects into consideration. If the card in question is “extra”, then it probably belongs in the library. If you do it before putting the card back, you shouldn't get the follow-up you mentioned.

Sure, but the assumption at this point in the discussion was that a count-back failed to give us a solid answer.

Originally posted by Alex Roebuck:

a count-back failed to give us a solid answer.

It is exactly this contingency that should encourage us not to perform a countback here. Countbacks are time-consuming and error-prone, especially if a judge has not done a lot of them.

There is a very simple solution here that I feel folks are overlooking:
“Do you know what the top card of your library is supposed to be?”
If yes, reveal card to player A “Is this it?” put on top if yes.
If not known or the card is not supposed to be on top, reveal the card to both players. Ask if both players think it should be in the graveyard.
If both players think it should be in the graveyard, problem solved. If not, shuffle in preserving known sections of library.

If you think the card's origin was the library, issue LEC and reassure the player that it isn't a big deal. But if the game became ambiguous enough that a judge had to step in to resolve it, an infraction has usually occurred.

Thanks for the opinions, very useful!

I believe the players were not really concerned with getting a warning - these were experienced players who understand that an isolated warning is really nothing to worry about. They seemed mostly concerned with doing the right thing to preserve the integrity of the game.

With this kind of commendable behaviour, I always make sure to show my appreciation (like saying “excellent” and giving them a thumbs up gesture, or something), and I always keep this paragraph from the start of the IPG in mind:

Judges should be seen as a benefit to the players, helping to ensure the consistent and fair running of a tournament. Players should be encouraged to use judges as needed, and should not be afraid to call a judge when one is required. If a player commits an offense, realizes it, and calls a judge over immediately and before he or she could potentially benefit from the offense, the Head Judge has the option to downgrade the penalty without it being considered a deviation, though he or she should still follow any procedures recommended to fix the error.

When appropriate, I like to use the downgrade option given here.

So here's what I did:

I decided to try and let the players answer their own question, by asking some questions encouraging them to recall past game actions, and hopefully have them stumble upon the right answer.

- If the players could determine it has to be a graveyard card, I would flip it over and rule a GRV for failing to maintain the graveyard as a single face up pile (CR 404.2).

- If the players could determine it has to be a library card, I would put it back on top of the library and rule a GRV for failing to maintain the library as a single face down pile (CR 401.2). In hindsight maybe this was not the best call, but it feels appropriate.

- If the players couldn't decide either way, or if the process would take too much time, as a fallback I planned to rule L@EC, and shuffle the mystery card into the library. This seemed to be the safest fallback option that wouldn't reveal hidden information.

So I looked at the mystery card and started talking about the game:

Two Wasteland in the graveyard: “What did you destroy with those Wastelands?”

A Thalia in the graveyard: “When was that Thalia played and how did it die?”

Two Stoneforge Mystics in the graveyard and one in exile: “How did that Mystic end up in exile?”

They hesitated when I got to the Mystic, which gave me an ‘in’ to discuss the other Mystics as well. After a moment of discussion, the players confidently agreed that four Stoneforge Mystics were played by the graveyard's owner. One was countered to the graveyard, one resolved and was exiled, and two resolved and were killed.

I looked to see if I could see any reanimation or return-to-hand effects that could have allowed a single Mystic to be played twice. I couldn't see any, so I pointed out that there were only two in the graveyard, and one in exile. The players quickly agreed that that must mean the mystery card was a graveyard card and had to be a Stoneforge Mystic.

I congratulated them on getting it right, and flipped over the fourth Mystic.

I gave the GRV I planned to give, but I didn't record a penalty, and I cautioned the players to pay closer attention in the future to maintaining a clear and legal game state. I understand the argument to record the warning anyway, but this was such an unusual situation that had the players so genuinely puzzled that I'm happy with the way it resolved. But I'll keep it in mind for the future.

The players were both smiling, happy with the resolution, so all in all it was a nice feelgood customer service moment.