AP searches his library while resolving a dark petition. He places a card on top of his hand, picks it up, and continues to look through the library.

HCE or GRV? How do you fix this?

Sounds like AP is just making a mental note of what's left in his library. I don't see a problem at all, no HCE, no GRV, nothing to fix.

To be complete: AP placed the card back in his library and started searching for another one

Oh - that's very different then. This is a tricky one then, as you're going to need to investigate things like “how quickly did he change his mind” (immediately is fine, but the longer he took the less fine); “is it clear which of the cards was selected originally” (if it is, that's helpful. if not, we may have a problem); “can we still identify the card put back” (if yes, we can make him keep it, if not then it's difficult).

This doesn't feel like HCE, as there aren't really any cards anywhere they shouldn't be. It also doesn't feel like a GRV, as he hasn't misresolved or misplayed anything.

So it sounds like he simply changed his mind.

(1) If the card he originally took was clear and he was quick to change, then I'm ok with it (although I'd verbally caution him to be careful in future as it could be harder if cards get mixed).

(2) If it's unclear which card he originally took, but we can still tell which one he put back, I'd be inclined to make him keep it. I'd recommend that in future when he selects his card, to put it down a little away from his hand so that if he changes his mind, there's no confusion.

(3) If it's unclear which card he originally took, and we can't determine which card he's put back in the library, then he'll have to go ahead and get a new card as we can't fix anything.

In (2) and (3) I'd be asking questions to determine if something dodgy just happened, particularly in (3). I'd be looking for information on how the last few turns went, trying to figure out who's ahead and who's behind. I'd check his hand - if it's full of blanks or full of useful cards then I'm less worried. If it's lands plus one business spell and he's behind, and he didn't cast the business spell last turn, well, I'd be concerned.

I disagree on the (3). He chose a card and placed it in his hand which all was perfectly fine. The problem was then putting a card from his hand into his library which he should not do. I would honestly treat it like the old “crack a fetch, oh I shuffled my hand into my library” which is bad luck but you already resolved what was on the stack and we can not fix it so keep on playing. So basically I would not let him search for another card now since the potential for abuse would be too high.

//edit: I forgot that this falls under HCE now and that we can fix it. Have the opponent search APs library for “the card he shuffled away” (so any card NAP would like AP to have) and put it into APs hand, go on from there.

Edited Christian Genz (May 24, 2016 11:19:09 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

(3) If it's unclear which card he originally took, and we can't determine which card he's put back in the library, then he'll have to go ahead and get a new card as we can't fix anything.

Disagree on this. There's a chance that player:
- tutors 1st time
- shuffles a useless/suboptimal card
- tutors 2nd time.

Even if unintentional, too much of an advantage, by a mile.

I think it's simpler than it seems. Let's decompose this:
1) Player tutors, and adds the card to his hand (legal)
2) Player takes a card (any card!) from his hand, and shuffles it into his library (not legal)

Point 2) is a lot like “I shuffled my hand into my library”. I would rule HCE, since card went from a private zone to another private zone (we are used to see cards going the other way around, but technically it's the same).
Player reveals his library, opponents chooses a card that goes to player hand.
Maybe ridicolous, but technically correct.

My two cents.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (May 24, 2016 09:19:50 AM)

I agree with Francesco and Christian. :)

Thanks everyone, really helpfull!

This seems like a clear case of HCE to me. Simply have AP reveal his library and NAP choose a card to put back into AP's hand.

I think a more interesting question is what to do if the tutor were one that required a reveal, like Idyllic Tutor. In that case, I'd be tempted to fix the problems one at a time. First have AP reveal his library, and NAP chooses a card to put back into his hand. Then AP reveals his hand and NAP chooses a card to be treated as the card that was searched for. If it wasn't an enchantment, it will go back to the library. Would others agree with this fix?

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Would others agree with this fix?

Nope.

I mostly agree with Francesco, except that he's focused a bit too much on the ways this can be Cheating. Assuming we eliminate that, I'd tend to agree that the player put a card into their library for no good reason, and instruct them to finish shuffling. I see no reason to reveal the entire library, nor to put any card into their hand.

Yes, I see where a literal, technical application of the IPG could lead to that - but at its heart, this (corner case) scenario is a player resolving a spell incorrectly - i.e., a simple GRV with no remedy. The player will learn that many - most? - opponents at Comp or Pro REL don't allow “take-backs”.

If you find yourself saying “reveal the entire library to the opponent”, please take a moment to consider that the HCE infraction and fix might not be the best answer. Yes, there are (very rare) cases where it will be the outcome - but please, don't try so hard to get HCE to fit.

d:^D

So how is this scenario different from a player shuffling their hand into their library? In both cases, the problem was that a card was put into the library illegally. Where's the difference?

If a player distractedly, shuffles his hand into his library, and the identity of the cards is not known, the infraction is GRV and the fixing is to leave the situation as it is. He is not entitled to buy a new hand.

now what if said person put the card off to side not in his hand shuffles libray decides not to get card grabs said card that he put to side grabs ddiff card that ok?

and to respond to jorge i did that by accident once had to either go to g2 or play with out hand till drawing more cards via draw phase of other affects(mistakes happen) theere was no way opponent knew what was in my hand at the time

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If you find yourself saying “reveal the entire library to the opponent”, please take a moment to consider that the HCE infraction and fix might not be the best answer. Yes, there are (very rare) cases where it will be the outcome - but please, don't try so hard to get HCE to fit.

I feel like I must have missed a memo here.
Philosophically speaking, |EDIT: mixed up the two scenarios| why is leaving the player with one less card better than leaving him with the correct amount of cards for commiting HCE?

Also, I don't see how this is not HCE due to both the wording of HCE, and Toby's Blogpost (quoted later on).

Jorge Rua
If a player distractedly, shuffles his hand into his library, and the identity of the cards is not known, the infraction is GRV and the fixing is to leave the situation as it is. He is not entitled to buy a new hand.

IPG, HCE
A player commits an error in the game that cannot be corrected by only publicly avaliable information and does so without his or her opponent's permission.

This infraction only applies when a card whose identity is known to only one player is in a hidden set of cards both before and after the error. A set is a physically distinct group defined by a game rule or effect. It may correspond to a specific zone, or may only represent a part of a zone

Isn't this exactly what happened?

Also, in Toby's original HCE Cornercase Blogpost, when remedying what is now MPE, he wrote

Toby Elliott
Looks like the infraction was shuffling cards into their library that they weren’t supposed to! The HCE fix is to show the library to the opponent and let them choose the number of cards that are supposed to be in the hand – in this case, five, since that’s where they’re mulliganning to.

Bar the mulligan-part - which is no longer accurate due to the existance of MPE - isn't this exactly what we are dealing with here?
EDIT: Once with one card, once with the whole hand
If so, what has changed?
I'm generally curious, because I must have missed that update.

Additional relevant text from HCE:

IPG, HCE
If this set contains more cards than it is supposed to contain, the player reveals the set of cards that contains the excess and his or her opponent chooses a number of previously-unknown cards sufficient to reduce the set to the correct size. The cards chosen are treated as excess cards. (…) Excess cards are returned to the correct zone.

Thanks ahead of time for clarifying, as this comes as a genuine surprise to me.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (May 26, 2016 07:06:59 AM)