This brings me back to Chapin's GL at the Pro Tour. A judge ruling was made that Chapin had failed to reveal the card, even though at that time, everybody knew which card exactly it was that Chapin had just drawn. I'm struggling to see the difference here.

I've not seen the video from the Pro Tour, but my understanding is that the card was clearly set on his hand. There is no doubt at that point - it's in his hand, somewhat indistinct from the other cards.

In this scenario, there's a small overlap of a corner of a card.

There's a vast difference.

d:^D

So in this scenario, if the card was placed more squarely on top of the face-down hand, there would be room for a GRV or even worse a DEC?

Yep, although I would try to stop him before he takes a card that's now in his hand and mixes it with the others (that should be on their way to the bottom of his library at this point). It's like when you're drafting - once you put a card with your previous picks, it's been picked.

Keep in mind that this sort of distinction is really to help reduce concerns about sleight-of-hand tricks. I think we can all agree that Chapin was an unfortunate - but valid! - victim of rules created to protect him.

d:^D

There was less than half a card's overlap with Chapin's hand when his opponent objected and the judge intervened; certainly enough to be considered part of his hand, but not enough to cause the card to be indistinguishable by your definition. I understand the sleight-of-hand concerns with the distinction between cards in hand vs not, but particularly in cases where, again, we weren't present at the table, how are we to determine whether the card was or was not in his hand? The players are highly likely to have different opinions on this point and will undoubtedly have differing ideas of “distinguishable”; what makes this different?

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (April 14, 2015 11:10:43 PM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

but not enough to cause the card to be indistinguishable by your definition

what definition? I simply provided the concepts that help YOU determine how to handle various situations.

I'm saying the card was not indistinguishable by any visual or physical standard - but we've been previously and quite explicitly instructed that just because we can SEE the physical card doesn't mean that we can deduce its uniqueness for cases where such things matter, and that's the apparent line that Mr. Chapin was held to at last weekend's event. You yourself just said that you would ask if the card was physically distinguishable from the remainder of the hand, which seems like a pretty significant departure from that principle.

And again, more importantly, if we were not witness to this event as it occurred, how would we tell how much was too much?

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (April 14, 2015 11:44:12 PM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

There was less than half a card's overlap with Chapin's hand when his opponent objected and the judge intervened; certainly enough to be considered part of his hand, but not enough to cause the card to be indistinguishable by your definition. I understand the sleight-of-hand concerns with the distinction between cards in hand vs not, but particularly in cases where, again, we weren't present at the table, how are we to determine whether the card was or was not in his hand? The players are highly likely to have different opinions on this point and will undoubtedly have differing ideas of “distinguishable”; what makes this different?

So I've spent over half an hour trying to find where I read “A card is considered drawn when any part of it touches another card in your hand”. Never found it. Nowhere that I could find in the comprehensive rules or IPG does it define when a card is considered drawn. I think that it's widely accepted among judges that a card is considered drawn when it touches another card in your hand. I'm sure there's a line of reasoning for not defining when a card is drawn.

So why was Chapin awarded a game loss? I'd say for two reasons. First, the event is being run at professional REL rather than competitive. Second, the judges decided and communicated in the judges meeting that their definition of drawing a card would be it touching the other cards in the hand. I believe this was decided based again on the event being run at professional REL. So this means that it's up to the judge to interpret if a card was drawn or not based on the information he's given.

Preston - there have been some ‘O’fficial proclamations over the years, but it's also implied by the Definition for Looking at Extra Cards:

Players are considered to have looked at a card when they … but before it touches the other cards in their hand … Once a card has been placed into his or her hand … no longer L@EC.

Originally posted by Preston May:

First, the event is being run at professional REL rather than competitive.

Nope; this isn't one of the few (and admittedly fine) distinctions. For this scenario, and the Chapin scenario (which has become quite the sidetrack for this, and I hope we can drop that…), Comp and Pro REL are effectively the same.

Originally posted by Preston May:

Second, the judges decided and communicated in the judges meeting that their definition of drawing a card would be it touching the other cards in the hand.

Also no, but only because the judges at that Pro Tour have probably already seen the generally accepted wording that you can no longer find. (I can't help with that - so many of my reference sites are blocked by corporate security…)

I know I've read something like “when the hands are brought together” and “when it touches the other cards in hand”. I wish I had immediate access to that, to help you out. :p

d:^D

WRT Chapin, he does put it ‘not very’ overlapping, but then he picks up all three cards briefly before saying ‘oops’ and showing the one he ‘drew’. The ‘not very’ overlapping you can argue about, but once he's picked them up then he's done.

I think we can say that this is a matter of both intent and physical interaction between cards. I think we can clearly tell what the player is doing, and they didn't actually intend to move the card from their library to their hand.

Would setting a card down, searched with Liliana Vess, while shuffling the deck before putting it on top of the library be DEC if it simply touches the corner of the hand?

If a player accidentally flips the top card of their library face down on the table touching the corner of their hand be DEC?

If a player sets their hand face down on the table touching a Mountain in play be DEC? Did they draw that mountain?

Have been pondering this question over for a while and one thing I'm interested in is: how do those of you that get there reach the conclusion of GRV: Warning?

Personally I love the laissez-faire definition of “it's drawn if there's any doubt about its identity”. Those of you who define the card as drawn, though, are you not compelled to upgrade the GRV to a Game Loss? If you believe there is doubt on the identity of the card then you believe there is the potential for cheating (a different card from the hand could be put back into the Anticipate pile, then put onto the bottom of the library. ) If you don't believe there is doubt, then you're making a mockery of yourself by doling out punishment here. An unknown card being returned to an anticipate decision certainly fits the criteria of GRV upgrade on grounds that “An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded”. This (hypothetical) situation is highly abusable.

I don't know how to justify a warning here, despite the fact that it feels correct to slap the player on the wrist, tell him it's Comp. REL and just don't play loose!

Originally posted by Kieran Tippet:

If you believe there is doubt on the identity of the card then you believe there is the potential for cheating (a different card from the hand could be put back into the Anticipate pile, then put onto the bottom of the library. ) If you don't believe there is doubt, then you're making a mockery of yourself by doling out punishment here.

It seems like you have a misunderstanding of what infractions and penalties represent. Infractions (and their associated penalties) aren't punishments, and they don't imply that anything malicious is going on. They exist to remind players to play more carefully and as a reinforcement of the lesson that the rules need to be followed. Some of them are more harsh because the problem that causes them does more harm to the game state than others.

If you suspect cheating is taking place, then you investigate, and if you determine the player is cheating, then you disqualify them. If you rule out cheating (or never suspect it in the first place), then you apply the standard infraction of a GRV.

This isn't an issue of knowing the card's identity (as I'm pretty sure all the cards involved are face down anyway and we actually DON'T know their identity). This is an issue of whether or not the card is considered drawn or not.

It is very easy to tell which card was set down from Anticipate, and just because the corners happen to touch doesn't mean it was drawn. The player also has not made a choice just yet, he can set cards down on the table as much as he wants but his choice is not considered chosen until the card goes to his hand and/or the other two go to the bottom of his library. This is not the case, therefore nothing needs fixing nor do we need to interfere.

Corner touching =/= into hand.

So when is it into hand? 25% overlap? 50%? 100%? I'm still waiting for an answer to that one. I suspect the answer is going to be “use your judgement”, which sounds like common sense, but can only lead to less consistency.

As far as I can tell from Scott's answers, there's no infraction because he ruled that the card touch was accidental. If the card was placed down with the hand, in such a way to indicate that the card has been chosen, but there's only a partial overlap with the rest of the hand, does that change the situation?