I have a question regarding Hidden Card Error, and how it has swallowed the “GRV upgrade” path.

Some time during Return to Ravnica Standard, I assisted with a ruling at a tournament in which a player announced a Sphinx's Revelation for 5, tapped his lands, confirmed with his opponent, and drew his cards. It wasn't until after the draw that he realized the Revelation was still in his hand; the solution I suggested at the time, which we applied, was that the point of error was moving the card to the stack (he cast it legally except for that step), and that the legality of the error couldn't be verified (he could have bluffed having the spell, knowing he could draw into it), so we issued a GRV - upgrade to GL.

With the new category of Hidden Card Error taking over for GRV upgrades and DEC, it seems that this error still falls under the same line of thought; they committed a Game Play Error by not casting the spell correctly, but now that they've drawn the cards their opponent can't verify that it was legal to cast this spell, and neither can a judge. Two sticking points, though, are that the definition of HCE includes the phrases:

> “… and does so without his or her opponent's permission”. The player got confirmation from their opponent to draw the cards, so this isn't the simple matter of “too many cards in hand”; it seems to me that the only point of error was in the spell-casting process, not in drawing the cards. Fixing the Sphinx's Revelation draws (instead of fixing the spell being improperly cast) by applying ‘Perish the Thought’ 5 times may be appropriate, but it feels like we're shifting the point of error, and how does that agree with the ‘without permission’ line?

> “Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation.” Was ‘improperly casting Sphinx’s Revelation' a publicly-correctable error, given that the card should have been in a public zone (the stack), and the opponent could have caught it then (“okay, show me the Rev”)? If so, what policy would we apply here?

This seems very similar to this thread about Gush.

GRV/FtMGS. Backing up here is correct I believe, though it could be awkward if there's a shuffle effect present (due to the number of cards drawn).

I almost wonder if we could get away with the default fix described here:

“If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.”

The problem with the default fix is that the identity of the object isn't known to both players, as it wasn't revealed.

I think the sticky bit with this situation is the ability to know if he had a sphinx's rev before the draw or after the draw. We could investigate for cheating,(maybe it was a supreme verdict, and under the heat of the moment he got them confused?) and if that comes back negative I feel like this is an HCE.

At JAR I would move the rev from hand to graveyard if present.

At comp, I would GRV - HCE…and I torn between backing up and applying the standard fix. We could backup, but backup what? All the player did was tap a bunch of lands and draw cards, there isnt actually a sphinx's rev to backup. I suppose we have the player reveal their hand to their opponent and they take 5 cards to get shuffled in…and leave his lands tapped?

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

The problem with the default fix is that the identity of the object isn't known to both players, as it wasn't revealed.

In that case what's our fix?

If there's a Sphinx's Revelation in hand, we set it aside, back up through 5 card draws, and hand out the penalties. In theory we want this to end up the same as before, with them casting said Revelation to draw those same 5 cards, just remembering to put it on the stack. However this has some room for abuse if they have the ability to shuffle.

How is this really different than the default fix, assuming Revelation is in hand? We ideally want them to still cast said Revelation and draw the same number of cards, and default fixing prevents things from changing their decisions. It really just comes down to a question of whether casting a spell is a required zone change (from hand to stack) or not….

Now if there's no Sphinx's Revelation in hand I think this is a pretty straightforward DQ investigation (well, where'd it go?) Sure, there is the possibility that the player cast Revelation hoping to draw one (as I pointed out in the thread about Gush), but that seems super risky. If your opponent calls you out before you draw your hand and you don't have it, you are caught cheating. If you draw, opponent calls a judge because there's no Revelation, and you didn't draw it you are once again caught cheating.

Actually, I think that this may be Cheating. Why?
Can the player who cast Sphinx Revelation prove that he had the card in his hand before drawing the cards?
If he can't prove and you can't (investigating this) prove it, he actually casted a spell and resolve it, without having it in his hand.

I'd also like to point out two things here:

1). In the example as described the player casting Revelation confirmed the card draws with their opponent. This violates the “A player commits a Game Play Error that cannot be corrected by only publicly available
information and does so without his or her opponent’s permission” part of the definition.

2). Drawing cards happens one at a time. The opponent had ample opportunity here to intervene as they lay out or just draw 5 cards. This violates the “Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation. In these situations, the root cause should be
penalized and that remedy applied” part of the philosophy.

I really think this is a stretch as HCE….

I don't think this is cheating I am assuming the player has the revelation in hand after the draw.

Sent from my iPhone

Originally posted by Matt Wall:

Was ‘improperly casting Sphinx’s Revelation' a publicly-correctable error, given that the card should have been in a public zone (the stack), and the opponent could have caught it then (“okay, show me the Rev”)?

Yes.

Assuming that the player got acknowledgement from the opponent, the game rules violation here was 100% publicly correctible.

That said, the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure how to fix this. Honestly, I don't know that policy really covers this case. I'd probably do my best to come up with a kludge and not worry about it too much, since it's a pretty narrow exception.

Originally posted by Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero:

Actually, I think that this may be Cheating. Why?
Can the player who cast Sphinx Revelation prove that he had the card in his hand before drawing the cards?
If he can't prove and you can't (investigating this) prove it, he actually casted a spell and resolve it, without having it in his hand.

Let's be careful about matters regarding Cheating and keep in mind the two “golden rules” of Cheating:
• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

From this, it is also implied that the player must be doing it on purpose. (You can really intend to gain an advantage or be aware that what you are doing is illegal if it is an accident.) Just because they can't prove that they didn't have a Sphinx's Revelation at the beginning of this sequence of events doesn't mean that they are Cheating. If they don't have a Revelation at the end of the sequence after drawing cards, that may prompt a line of questioning that could lead to you determining Cheating, but it shouldn't be your baseline assumption. Prove the two things above first.

Originally posted by Matt Wall:

Was ‘improperly casting Sphinx’s Revelation' a publicly-correctable error

Yes; this remains a GRV, not an HCE.

Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero
Actually, I think that this may be Cheating.

Certainly, it *MAY* be - and it is a good idea to investigate something like this, to make sure it meets the criteria - as Riki explained.

I will note that it is impossible for us, in this forum, to decide this is Cheating. :)

d:^D

Yes Riki and yes Scott.

Thats why i say “MAY”. I had understood reading a lot of conversations in the forums that is impossible for us from where we are now, to prove cheating in something described here.

But, I'll consider what Riki says and also is writen in the golden rules.

Is he trying to gain an advantage?
As we read, he's gaining cards and lives. He's gaining an advantage.

He's aware that he's doing something illegal?
We can't determine that from here, if a judge meet this scenario that will be the result of an investigation.

I'm not trying to say that every similar scenario should be treated as a potential DQ scenario.

Best regards.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Matt Wall
Was ‘improperly casting Sphinx’s Revelation' a publicly-correctable error

Yes; this remains a GRV, not an HCE.

So, given that the point of error was improperly casting the spell, what's our solution here? The “GRV - upgrade to GL” solution is no longer on the books; the only way to upgrade a GRV now is explicitly in the case of a face-down card cast as a morph, that doesn't have the morph ability. This would imply that the penalty for this scenario is the default “Warning”, but… Is there any additional fix for us to apply here? Attempting to rewind is messy, because for us to set aside the Revelation and put 5 random cards on top of the library means we're -assuming- the player had the Rev in hand at the appropriate time, but we can't be sure of that. :/ And none of the partial fixes apply; the closest we come is the “missed zone change”, but the identity of the Rev. wasn't known before the error. Do we have to just leave the game as is, with the Revelation plus 5 cards in hand?

Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero
Actually, I think that this may be Cheating.

A fair point, but for the sake of this scenario, I can confirm the player wasn't cheating (with as much certainty as possible without reading minds). He genuinely intended to cast the spell correctly, but did things out of order, and unfortunately, out of order in a way that forced us to question the legality of the play.

Matt, if you're certain it's not Cheating, then you have to accept that the Revelation was already in hand.

The opponent already allowed the (invisible) spell to resolve, so we can speed through the backup: put 5 cards on top, put Revelation on the stack, it resolves, those 5 cards are right back in hand. Or, just put the Revelation in the graveyard, and say you did the rest…

d:^D

Originally posted by Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero:

Originally posted by Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero:

Is he trying to gain an advantage?
As we read, he's gaining cards and lives. He's gaining an advantage.

Careful with this. Many accidental errors will inevitably favor one player or the other with some advantage. The question isn't whether an advantage was gained, but whether he was trying to do so when the illegal action first took place. Look for the cause, not the effect.