Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

They have to convince me that they do not know that they are not allowed to shuffle the opponent's deck when there is no instruction to do so. Which basically means they have to prove that they are completely new to the game and don't know the rules whatsoever, but yet still own Legacy cards.

I don't think “must be cheating” is supported by the IPG - we have a whole bunch of infraction options because we assume players make genuine mistakes. If I change the statement for an error most judges will have seen it becomes clear that this just doesn't work:

They have to convince me that they do not know that they <<<have to reveal for Courser>>>. Which basically means they have to prove that they are completely new to the game and don't know the rules whatsoever…

I'm not going to DQ for cheating every player who fails to reveal for a Courser even though almost all players know they're supposed to. The IPG demands two things for cheating, a player must know they're doing something against the rules and be attempting to gain an advantage. So players aren't cheating even if they know it's wrong and gain an advantage - the IPG demands they must be attempting to gain an advantage.

Alex Roebuck
AP gets momentarily confused and thinks NAP is presenting post-shuffle.

In this case they may know they don't get to shuffle in this situation and they may gain an advantage from it, but they were not attempting to gain an advantage and so cheating is off the table.

Edited for quote frame fixes

Edited Marc Shotter (March 3, 2015 06:32:47 AM)

Jumping in here with a possible fix. This of course only comes at a point where you removed cheating as the conclusion.

Investigate NAP, the Brainstorm player, away from AP. Set an accord for how he remembers things by asking some irrelevant things about the game that is ongoing or things he should remember. Then ask him for the two cards that were on his library. Since the shuffle was incredibly brief his deck can't really be randomized. Look for the two cards to see if they are touching, and in the right order. For me personally that would be enough to fix the situation and I have done so in the past. This is also a way to identify a possible opportunistically cheating NAP at this point, if he suddenly re-remembers what the cards were after seeing them in the deck.

Make sure to explain to the AP afterwards why you believe his opponent and that you didn't just let him tutor for the two cards he needs. The feel bad for the AP should also help in him accepting this fix easier than he would in a more neutral scenario.