Hello Judges, this question is SILVER!

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=526

Adam is playing Nolan in a Legacy Grand Prix, Day 1.

At the end of Adam’s turn, Nolan casts Enlightened Tutor, searches for a card and places it on top of his library forgetting to reveal it. On Nolan’s turn, he draws his card and Adam realizes that Nolan did not reveal properly for Enlightened Tutor. Nolan currently has 3 cards in hand and shows you a Tropical Island, Tundra and a Sylvan Library.

What is the appropriate Infraction, Penalty and Fix?

Edited Josh Stansfield (Sept. 11, 2013 09:26:33 PM)

This is a Game Play Error - Failure to Reveal. The Penalty for this infraction is a Game Loss. Since the card was in a unique position to be identified after the infraction occurred (and even though it no longer is able to be identified), this penalty should be downgraded to a warning. No Fix. Play on.

Infraction: Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation (MIPG 2.5)

Penalty: A Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation's default Penalty is a Warning. However, there is additional information in the Game Rule Violation Definition section:

An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was legal.

Which means we go and talk to the Head Judge about an upgrade, right? No!

If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand) after the infraction was committed, do not upgrade the penalty

Since Nolan put the card he Enlightened Tutored for on top of his library, it was in a uniquely identifiable position. This means the penalty is a Warning.

Fix: Nothing from the Additional Remedy section. However, we do get something from Definition;

…and reveal the information if possible.

Unfortunately, we can't do this; revealing the Library would indicate to Adam that Nolan has no other artifact/enchantment cards in hand. We make no fix as a result, and let both players know to be careful to reveal all necessary cards. As a matter of course I'd let Adam know that he has the opportunity to appeal the ruling to the Head Judge (Since he is likely to be unhappy with the ruling), as well as offer to discuss the ruling and the reasoning behind it between rounds.

This answer presumes that we've performed the necessary investigation and determined that Nolan isn't committing a Cheating infraction.

Something to keep in mind since the latest revision to the MIPG; Game Play Error - Failure to Reveal is now a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation Infraction.

Originally posted by Daudi, Femeref Tutor:

“I do not teach. I simply Fail to Reveal.”

Edited Josh Andrews (Dec. 6, 2012 09:01:28 AM)

Well, GPE-FtR's gone now, so in its place would be GPE-GRV to cover it.

Actually, the card is no longer in an identifiable position.
Nolan has drawn for the turn, which was the card that he tutored for with Enlightened Tutor.
In such a scenario, Sylvan Library could already have been in his hand, and he tutored for a land instead. Nobody knows as the card is no longer identifiable.

The infraction here would be GPE - GRV, which comes with a warning default.
However,

An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was legal.

This is a very clear cut issue of seeking the HJ's permission to upgrade the penalty due to said reasons.

There is no fix. Nolan gets a Game Loss for this, and the next game (if applicable) starts.

Edited Andrew Teo (Dec. 6, 2012 09:06:46 AM)

Yep, I missed the fact that my cited penalty no longer exists. My bad. I agree with Joshua Andrews here.

I agree with previous posters, the penalty is a GPE: GRV and because of the inability to uniquely identify the card tutored for, it should be upgraded to a GL. However, Adam has commited a GPE: FTMGS. Nowhere in the scenario does it lead me to believe that there wasn't a reasonable amount of time to catch the error before Nolan drew for his turn. I would issue both penalties.

Originally posted by Andrew Teo:

Well, GPE-FtR's gone now, so in its place would be GPE-GRV to cover it.

Actually, the card is no longer in an identifiable position.
Nolan has drawn for the turn, which was the card that he tutored for with Enlightened Tutor.
In such a scenario, Sylvan Library could already have been in his hand, and he tutored for a land instead. Nobody knows as the card is no longer identifiable.

The infraction here would be GPE - GRV, which comes with a warning default.
However,

An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was legal.

This is a very clear cut issue of seeking the HJ's permission to upgrade the penalty due to said reasons.

There is no fix. Nolan gets a Game Loss for this, and the next game (if applicable) starts.

That's not 100% accurate.

If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand) after the infraction was committed, do not upgrade the penalty.

Since the card was on top of the library at one point, which is even an explicit example we're given by the MIPG, this penalty has to be a Warning. Not giving a Warning here is a deviation from policy, which we shouldn't be attempting.

Edited Josh Andrews (Dec. 6, 2012 09:22:12 AM)

“If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position (such as on top of the library or as the only card in hand) after the infraction was committed, do not upgrade the penalty.”

The quoted part is very specific in stating if it “was ever” in a uniquely identifiable position. This should be left as a warning.

I find this statement rather contentious. What if we take the position that, “Yes it was the only card I was holding just before I mashed it into the rest of my cards. Therefore for a brief moment it was uniquely identifiable.”

I'm guessing the philosophy behind the “was ever” was to rule out the possibility of the opponent noticing a failure to reveal and waiting until it was no longer uniquely identifiable then calling a judge for a game loss. By acknowledging that the opponent had the opportunity to correct the action and did not, it rules out the potential for abuse.

Under this assumption I would interview the players to get an idea of how long the card sat there before it was drawn. Since Enlightened Tutor is an instant and Nolan cast it at EOT, he could have immediately drawn it without giving Adam a chance to intervene. In this case I would seek upgrade to a game loss. If we can determine that there was sufficient time for Adam to call a judge, and he did not, then this stays as a warning.

Edit: As Mike pointed out, in the second case, Adam would also receive a FTMGS.

Edited Adam Zakreski (Dec. 6, 2012 09:28:09 AM)

I disagree, Adam. The card was uniquely identifiable at a point in time, explicitly defined as such by the very MIPG article we're ruling from. Whether there is intention behind that wording or not, we have to stick to the documents wherever possible.

In this case, the circumstance is neither significant nor exceptional. There's no ground for us to deviate from the document's mandated Warning penalty. The MIPG is so specific about this exact type of uniquely identifiable card situation that deviation shouldn't even be something we're considering.

Edited Josh Andrews (Dec. 6, 2012 09:29:20 AM)

@Joshua:
Nolan tutored for a card at the end of Adam's turn.
Nolan did not reveal the card and proceeded to draw.
The card has already entered Nolan's hand and is mixed with the other existing cards in his hand.
Once this happens, the card is no longer uniquely identifiable.
Just because it happens to be the only artifact/enchantment card in that player's hand does not mean that it is definitely the card he tutored for.
The card was on top of the library at one point, however, how can it be uniquely identified to be that particular card?
He failed to reveal, the card has been mixed with the cards in his hand, it can no longer be identified, simple as that.
The only exception I can see from this would be if it's the only card in his hand after he draws.

To play devil's advocate… I would challenge one to come up with a situation where the card was NEVER in a uniquely identifiable position, not even for an instant.

The land from Rampant Growth is never in a uniquely identifiable position,
assuming you have a 5 card hand.

I agree completely with Joshua here. The card no longer needs to be identifyable to “HAVE BEEN” in a position to be identifyable.

Also, playing DA has it's uses, but here the answer is simple and many: i.e. Altar of Bone or any other tutor with a reveal. The card goes from Library to hand, so there is no reasonable chance for an opponent to stop this action while the card may be identified.

By Rampant Growth I naturally meant something like Cultivate because
Rampant Growth makes no sense.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

To play devil's advocate… I would challenge one to come up with a situation where the card was NEVER in a uniquely identifiable position, not even for an instant.

Playing Devil's Advocate is great; promoting discussion is pretty important with these things. However, I accept your challenge.

To do so you need to go to a different card, or presume Enlightened Tutor is being resolved incorrectly.

Example A:

Nolan casts Enlightened Tutor in Adam's End Step. He searches his library for a card, and puts that card into his hand. The card was never “uniquely identifiable” as required by the MIPG. Whilst Nolan has obviously committed an infraction in putting the card into his hand, he's also committed a GRV by failing to reveal, and would receive a Game Loss.

Example B:

Nolan casts Eladamri's Call in Adam's End Step. He searches his library for a card, and puts that card into his hand. The card was never “uniquely identifiable” as required by the MIPG. Since Eladamri's Call actually puts the card into hand, that action is fine; the GRV is in failing to reveal the card, and Nolan receives a Game Loss for that infraction.

Edited Josh Andrews (Dec. 6, 2012 09:39:57 AM)