A player presents a legal deck but while shuffling his library due to an in-game effect, a card drops from the deck on the floor. Neither player notices this and they play a few more turns until a passing judge notes the card on the floor.

What infraction has the player committed, if any, and what is the fix?


Possible answers:

One argument I've heard is that the infraction is GRV because there's a game rule that says that players must keep their libraries in a single face-down pile (which this player failed to do, because one part of the library is on the floor). It's too late to back up and there is no partial fix but clearly the card can't stay on the floor. So how to fix?

The other argument, advanced by me, is that this is a Deck/Decklist Problem because “the deck contains an illegal number of cards” because a card dropped on the floor ceases to be part of a deck. This would cause the player to get a Game Loss.

I would get behind the second interpretation - were a deckcheck to happen at that point, the player would not be playing with a legal deck.

Additionally, this is an error the opponent cannot verify - in being presented the deck after it was shuffled, the opponent wouldn't count the cards in the library! If we call it a GRV, I would consider an upgrade according to the letter (if not necessarily the spirit) of the IPG.

I guess we have to consider the impact of this situation and whether it could be exploited - if there is a dead card in the matchup, unscrupulous players could easily “drop” the cards when shuffling. To this end, it seems like an error that needs a higher level of penalty to discourage this possibility?

I'd go with Looking at Extra Cards for whoever did the shuffling.

If we've ruled out any intention (so it's not cheating), then we're looking at a random deck with a random card being missing. That's not going to seriously affect the game play. It's not like they're changing the odds of any particular card being drawn. It's random.

A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see. Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand.

Just shuffle it in, issue the warning, give the “please be more careful” schpiel, and move on.

3.5. Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem
Definition
A player commits one or more of the following errors involving deck contents or registration:
• The deck or decklist contains an illegal number of cards for the format.
…
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

that's a clear example case for DDlP, just like when you by mistake shuffles a card from your opponent in your deck (because you have the same sleeves) and now he has 1 less card and you 1 more card.

It's very strange to shuffle your opponents card into your library during a game.

normally it happens between games, where auras from one players are enchanting another players permanents and in the process of scooping things get mixed up.

I think Chris nails it, here. Looking At Extra Cards is as close as we need to get, it records the incident in case of a pattern, and the remedy is exactly what we need here.

d:^D

hi scott, sorry to bother you in this topic after you have answered the main question but seens like i didn't get the philosophy behind DDLP right. I'll tell you what i understood, could please tell me where I'm wrong?

“3.5. Tournament Error — Deck/Decklist Problem
Definition
A player commits one or more of the following errors involving deck contents or registration:
• The deck or decklist contains an illegal number of cards for the format.
…
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.”

Aparently there's a distinction in the idea of “deck” and a “presented deck”, which led me to believe that “deck” means the group of cards in all zones of the game plus sideboard, at the present moment, that is owned by the owner of the deck, and “presented deck” the group of face down cards plus sideboard presented to your opponent for shuffling at the beginning of the match.

To emphasize the understanding that if the “deck” being played at any time suffers a change in the number of cards in it would fall into DDLP I quote and example from the IPG:

“F. A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.”

I understood this example as: your deck has now more cards then your “presented deck” because we can't separate it from your sideboard.

Thiago: Thiss is my personal understanding of this.

I do not believe you are misunderstanding D/DL, per se. I think what Scott and Chris is getting at is that both infractions can reasonably fit here and giving the W for LaEC instead of a GL for D/DL seems a more reasonable response considering the potential for abuse of this particular scenario.

Personally, I found it interesting to read because I would probably not even have thought of LaEC as a potential infraction. I would most likely felt D/DL and applied a GL neither me nor the player would be very pleased with.

Originally posted by Thiago Perígolo Souza:

Aparently there's a distinction in the idea of “deck” and a “presented deck”, which led me to believe that “deck” means the group of cards in all zones of the game plus sideboard

CR100.2a tells us your deck is not your “75”, its your “60”. CR401.1 tells us that stack becomes your library at the start of the game.

At the risk of overanalyzing… “presented deck” just refers to the deck as presented at the beginning of the game. We're not going to issue a D/DLP infraction to someone who brings a card legally into their library from the sideboard via a Glittering Wish (followed by somehow getting shuffled into their library), even though it may be game 1 and you now have a sideboard card in your library.

As far as not being in your deck anymore, I'd argue the card actually is in your library as far as the game is concerned, it just happens to not physically be in your library at the moment (kinda like how you can pick up the top X cards to look at them… they're still in the library, but they're physically in your hand).

I think Thiago is taking a bit too literal of an interpretation of the
first example in the IPG. The “deck” can have less than the required
number of cards at any number of points, such as when a player sideboards a
few cards out and is thinking about what to board in and other semantic
scenarios. Most commonly, however, if a player pile-counts their deck and
discovers it to be short and calls a judge while he attempts to discern
what is missing, we do not issue a D/DLP for that until they present,
despite their deck definitely containing less than the required number of
cards for the format.

I believe the point Scott is making is not that either LEC or D/DLP could
apply, but that LEC applies best to the situation as described and
therefore should be the appropriate infraction.

In some situations, however, you just don't know if the card fell on the floor during pre-game procedure or during a shuffling effect.

Suppose the players did not count or pile shuffle their decks before presenting, suppose some shuffling events did indeed take place, and then a card was discovered on the floor.

Neither player knows if the card fell down during a shuffling effect or at the beginning of the game. If the former, the penalty is a Warning. If the latter, the penalty is a Game Loss. The judge would then need to decide when the card fell out of the deck and this may be very hard or impossible to determine. What should be done then?

Originally posted by Jon Lipscombe:

I would get behind the second interpretation - were a deckcheck to happen at that point, the player would not be playing with a legal deck.

I just hope you're not suggesting making deck checks in the middle of a game in progress. That would be… awkward.

I really like the interpretation of L@EC as applied here by Chris and Scott. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense.

Petr Hudeček
Neither player knows if the card fell down during a shuffling effect or at the beginning of the game. If the former, the penalty is a Warning. If the latter, the penalty is a Game Loss. The judge would then need to decide when the card fell out of the deck and this may be very hard or impossible to determine. What should be done then?

I don't think it's feasible to determine that the presented deck was illegal, especially if the game is already advanced. The safest starting assumption is that the card ended up on the floor during the course of the game.

I thought that it was a BIG problem that a player played any portion of a match with an illegal deck, but apparently it is kind of ok if the illegality was caused by an honest mistake.
Thanks for the clarification on the philosophy guys.

Edited Thiago Perígolo Souza (April 28, 2015 03:36:30 AM)

Now, hold on…I don't think anyone said it was okay if the mistake was honest. It's still a problem, and still needs to be fixed, but a L@EC and Warning sufficiently records the incident without punishing a player for being clumsy.