A player accidentally picks up 4 cards when resolving a Ponder. What is the appropriate infraction and fix?

Relevant IPG quotes:
“Once those cards have joined another set, the infraction is handled as a Hidden Card Error or Game Rule Violation” -LEC section
“This infraction does not apply to simple dexterity errors, such as when a card being pulled off the library sticks to another card and is seen” -HCE section

Does this mean that this is a GRV? If so, what is the fix?

Hello David.

I might be wrong but I think this is HCE. One of the examples for HCE in the IPG is “a player picks up four cards while resolving Anticipate” and I couldn't find another type of information that contradicts this.

If the card was actually sticked to another, I believe we can still treat is as a LEC. The card should be identifiable, so we can just shuffle it back into the library.

If the player just picked up 4 cards instead of 3, then it's HCE. We can apply the fix regarding “excess cards”.

*extra thought*
Considering that now the “intention” of the player commiting the error can help us in determining the correct infraction, if he/she wanted to pick up 3 cards but an extra one was sticked to the others, then it's LEC. If he/she believed that the correct number was actually 4, it's HCE.

In both cases, the penalty is Warning. :)
My two cents.

Edited Jacopo Strati (Jan. 18, 2017 03:12:01 PM)

Since policy says extra cards in a set are HCE *unless* they are the result
of dexterity errors we must discover the source of the error.

Q: “Why did you pick up 4 cards instead of 3 for your ponder?”

A1: “Because they stuck together” or “I accidentally grabbed an extra one”
= LEC

A2: “I was distracted by a cool cosplay and thought it was Fact or Fiction
for a second” or some version of “I thought I was supposed to pick up 4” =
HCE

Originally posted by Jon Goud:

Since policy says extra cards in a set are HCE *unless* they are the result
of dexterity errors we must discover the source of the error.

Q: “Why did you pick up 4 cards instead of 3 for your ponder?”

A1: “Because they stuck together” or “I accidentally grabbed an extra one”
= LEC

A2: “I was distracted by a cool cosplay and thought it was Fact or Fiction
for a second” or some version of “I thought I was supposed to pick up 4” =
HCE

This. :)

Originally posted by Jon Goud:

A1: “Because they stuck together” or “I accidentally grabbed an extra one”
= LEC

A2: “I was distracted by a cool cosplay and thought it was Fact or Fiction
for a second” or some version of “I thought I was supposed to pick up 4” =
HCE

I don't like this. Do we want to base our ruling on such nuances in what the player says? I can easily imagine a player who would try to manipulate the judge to a specific infraction/remedy. I am not a native speaker and I take “accidental grabbing” as a wide term, maybe even incorporating “errors of mind”. Most infractions are “accidents”.

The important distinction here is the need to ask questions to understand
what actually occurred. A player trying to execute the wrong instruction
in this case, or as Milan put it, an error of mind, is an HCE. LEC comes
in with errors of dexterity.

We are assuming that a case like this is accidental, as always, since
otherwise leads us to a Cheating investigation, which is not super helpful
in addressing the case. Most players are also not going to know the
nuances of what makes the incident one infraction vs. another, and we are
always empowered to investigate further if we suspect they're lying. It's
also worth noting that they're getting a warning either way, so I'm
unconvinced there's a lot of room for abuse here.

I'm on board with what Jon says if we're talking about the previous IPG. With the new one, particularly the line I quoted from the new LEC section, I'm not sure if that's the case anymore

Edited - see correction post, below.

Example B of L@EC can apply to this, even though it's (very slightly) different:
“A player pulls up an extra card while drawing from his library.”

Since this is Ponder, I'm assuming that the 4 cards were never added to the hand (your original post implies that much). If that's true, then we're probably going to investigate just a bit, confirm that it was an honest error, and shuffle those 4 into the random portion of the library, before resolving Ponder correctly.

In the less-common case where the players are certain which card was the 4th, we can shuffle just that one away - maybe he picked up the 4th, with the other 3 in his other hand, and they realized it immediately? It's not only rare that it's this clear, but it's also rare that the opponent agrees that it's this clear; usually they're more likely to say “no, I can't be sure…” (even if they are sure, grrr).

Originally posted by L@EC Philosophy:

A player can accidentally look at extra cards easily and this infraction handles situations where a dexterity or rules error has led to a player seeing cards in a library that they shouldn’t have. Cards are considered to be in a library until they touch cards in another set. Once those cards have joined another set, the infraction is handled as a Hidden Card Error or Game Rule Violation.

The first part of that mentions dexterity or rules error; yes, we can apply L@EC if they somehow thought they should look at 4 instead of 3. The second part of that may be what's tripping up some of us; Ponder never moves those cards from the library, it just lets you look at them - so they remain part of the library, and not another set. (Granted, a player might pick up cards for Ponder and add them to their hand - e.g., Ponder(Brain)storm…)

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 19, 2017 12:11:01 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The first part of that mentions dexterity or rules error; yes, we can apply L@EC if they somehow thought they should look at 4 instead of 3. The second part of that may be what's tripping up some of us; Ponder never moves those cards from the library, it just lets you look at them - so they remain part of the library, and not another set. (Granted, a player might pick up cards for Ponder and add them to their hand - e.g., Ponder(Brain)storm…)

I think that part of the confusion here is in what the policy change article and MIPG say on the issue…

Originally posted by Policy Changes for Aether Revolt:

We also took this opportunity to do put some more definition around the LEC/HCE border. The key is to look at whether the opponent intended (mistakenly or not) to pick up that many cards, or if they were trying to pick up the correct number and failed to do so thanks to bad dexterity (as opposed to bad counting!)

Originally posted by MIPG, Appendix B:

More detail on the LEC/HCE boundary. A player has to have intended to look at the cards.

…and my initial thought was that HCE would more apply to a player misunderstanding a Ponder as “Look at 4” rather than the correct “Look at 3”. But a player attempting to “Look at 3” and grabbing a fourth due to sticky sleeves, or picking up three and accidentally knocking off the fourth, would be LEC. Because in the first case, it is a matter of the player deliberately grabbed the wrong number of cards. Whereas in the second case, the player attempted to grab the correct number of cards and just goofed.

Which becomes more critical in terms of this set of cards joining another set of cards. Because, even at that point, it becomes HCE no matter the “cause” of the error.

But if “rules error” can lead to LEC… That seems to present some kind of wrinkle to things. Especially because that would seem to more shift the line here, even though the update would seem to indicate a tweak here.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Which becomes more critical in terms of this set of cards joining another set of cards. Because, even at that point, it becomes HCE no matter the “cause” of the error.

But if “rules error” can lead to LEC… That seems to present some kind of wrinkle to things. Especially because that would seem to more shift the line here, even though the update would seem to indicate a tweak here.

The other element that bears mentioning, is whether or not the card is known to one or both players. And, in the case of Ponder, the fourth card would likely only be known to the person who cast Ponder. Which, per the definition of HCE, would seem to preclude LEC entirely…

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.

…and thus seems very similar to both Example B and Example E for HCE.

It also appears close to Example B for LEC, which might illustrate that the example(s) need a little bit more clarification around the edges.

I deleted my previous post because after reading it again, it seemed argumentative. Instead, I will ask questions and try to cite relevant policy.

My confusion is with the following.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Ponder never moves those cards from the library, it just lets you look at them - so they remain part of the library, and not another set.

Originally posted by MIPG 1.5:

Some infractions in this document refer to “sets” of cards. A set is a physically distinct group of
cards defined by a game rule or effect. It may correspond to a specific zone, or may only
represent a part of a zone. A set may consist of a single card.

This says a set can be a “part of a zone,” as well as defines a set as “a physically distinct group of cards.”

In this case, Ponder's effect defines a part of a zone that the player is allowed to look at. (The top three cards of their library.) When the player pulls those cards to look at them, they are holding a physically distinct group of cards. The definition of a set doesn't demand that the cards change zones, only be physically distinct. Why do we not consider this to be a set? If it is not a set, then how is it different from the example given under HCE?

Originally posted by MIPG 2.3:

A player casts Anticipate and picks up the top four cards of her library.

This has to be a set to be considered HCE, because the definition of HCE demands it.

Originally posted by MIPG 2.3:

The cards themselves must
be part of a distinct set intended by the player.

Anticipate lets you look at the top 3 cards of your library as well. Through a mistake, a player has an excess of 1 card in the set.
Correct me if I am wrong, but since this is considered HCE, we let the opponent choose the excess card in the set. The excess card is returned to the correct set, (the randomized portion of the library.) Then they continue to resolve anticipate with the now legal set.

In the case of Ponder, why would we not allow the opponent to choose a card to be shuffled in, and then allow the AP to put the three cards he now has on top of his library in any order, (and possibly shuffle?) Also, if we apply LEC instead, how do we choose which card is the one that should be shuffled away, (since he legally could look at 3 and reorder them before he draws a card.)

First, a quick aside, delving into (ancient?)(I'm not ancient!) history.
One of the early NetReps - i.e., the person responsible for answering questions on the Judge List (it used to be a LISTSERV implementation) - was Paul Barclay, and when he'd post an incorrect answer, he'd begin his correction with PANTS - Paul Again Not Thinking Straight.

So, back to present day: SANTA! (Scott Again Not Thinking Accurately)

The cards you look at for Ponder are, in fact, a set (per its intended use in the HCE definition), and adding an excess card(s) to that set falls under HCE. Reveal the set, choose one to be returned to the correct zone (shuffled into library, in this case), then finish resolving Ponder correctly with the other three.

I got stuck on that “or rules error”, that was my SANTA moment. As others noted, it seems odd that a player can tell us “oh, the 4th card stuck to the others” or even “I thought I grabbed three, whoops”, and get a different outcome than if they say “oh, I thought it was four - oops!”.

So, what kinds of things do fall under that “or rules error” exception? Paying B for Ponder, then looking at 3 cards. (Play a land, then tap River of Tears to cast Ponder.)

d:^D

Scott
I don't want to motivate a second SANTA here. But your final example, “Paying B for Ponder, then looking at 3 cards”, isnt't it a GRV?
I think it is, since GRV specifically covers mana payment errors (2.5 example A), and in the HCE philosophy it's stated that we should “Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error
subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation such as a Brainstorm cast using green mana. In
these situations, the infraction is based on that root cause.”

Is the strange way River of tears works, that makes you say that it should be L@EC?
Thanks

Federico, I'm sorry that wasn't clear - but yes, that's what I was saying. The “no, that's a GRV” meaning of the phrase “or rules error” applies in the example I gave. I did not mean for you to read that as L@EC.

d:^D