Something happened at an FNM that I really didn't have a clean answer for.

Abigail had just resolved a scry from Serum Visions. Nathan spaced out and cut her deck, thinking she was presenting it to him. (This is something I have done in the past, you feel really daft.) The players couldn't tell where the deck had been cut, and Abigail confirmed with me privately that Cryptic Command was on top and basic Island was on bottom.

Being that this was a pretty casual FNM where we all know and trust each other I decided the remedy was for me to take a cryptic command and a basic island, put them in their respective position and shuffle the unknown portion of the deck.

But what the heck do you do at comp REL. Give them a warning and shuffle the deck? That feels so bad for the person who scry'd. (scried?) But you can't really rely on information from Scrying player because they could just say X win condition was on top.

Edited Jon Munck (March 25, 2016 12:08:05 AM)

At Comp Rel you would leave the gamestate as is. Issue a warning to Nathan for GRV, remind the players to be more careful, and carry on.

Originally posted by Jon Munck:

But you can't really rely on information from Scrying player because they could just say X win condition was on top.

You mention this, yet you chose to use the information Abigail gave you to fix. Why?

So we know they only cut, didn't shuffle?

First, I do *not* endorse restoring AP's stated top and bottom cards without investigating. Luckily with only a single cut, it's easy to verify - somewhere near the middle of the deck should be a basic Island on top of a Cryptic Command. If that is the case, and neither player believes the deck was shuffled, or any cards were seen, then restore the deck to the correct order. If you can't find that pair of cards, then you have no way to undo the cut, so simply shuffle to restore the deck to a known random state.

That is the fix I'd try to apply at any REL, at Competitive consider a Warning for Looking at Extra Cards, if that happened, otherwise, for a Game Rules Violation.

I agree completely with Dan on this. Some might be concerned that Abigail could name any card she really wanted to draw as the one on top, but with a Scry 2 (or more), she has to be able to identify exactly the position of the Scry'd cards - there's such a small chance that a cheat-of-opportunity here could succeed.

d:^D

I really, really want to issue the GRV warning and back up to before the
scry. Obviously the deck can't be restored, but we can at least make sure
the opponent's action doesn't completely deny the AP the ability to execute
the instructions on their card. At Regular REL, probably that's what I'm
doing (well, GRV-Warning aside).

On the other hand, I certainly can't recall a justification for doing so at
Comp REL. A back-up should be to the point of error, which is
unfortunately after the scry is completed, and I can't think of any other
exceptions. I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong on that :)

As Scott and I mentioned, the deck /can/ be restored, at least in this case.

A rewind to before the scry, or a Deviation of “repeating” the scry, would
not be supported by policy at any REL.

Dan, now I feel silly. Your solution seems so obvious in hindsight. I honestly didn't think of it. Thanks, man.

And Jeff, I was giving my player the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't do it again, having been given better options. Also, I guess I'm confused about how much freedom the JAR gives us.

“ The fixes found in other documents (such as the Infraction Procedure Guide) are designed for a stricter environment and don't apply at Regular REL.” - JAR

This is the kind of language that made me feel comfortable with my solution at the time (Dan has presented an obviously better solution for this case).

Thanks for your help guys!

Agree with Dan, as long as you find only one instance of Cryptic Command-Island sequence.

Here is another reference:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2015/06/12/gp-utrecht-support-judge-report/

I had a similar situation come up in a modern 1K, where after a serum visions the opponent began shuffling their opponent's deck. I decided that the best “fix” was to finish randomizing the deck, have the AP Scry again, and issue NAP a GRV. It wasn't exactly elegant, but I dont think would be fair to A; use information that only AP had access to in order to rewind the Game state, or B, deny them a scry because their opponent did something silly.

I'd just make the note that many players cut in three piles instead of two, which may not grant the result you're looking for.

I'd also note that the potential for abuse goes up significantly if there had been any previous cards placed on the bottom of the library. If a Dig Through Time had been cast, there's a number of cards in a known sequence at the bottom of the library, right above the Cryptic/Island combo which should also be in the middle of the deck.

I don't think this means you don't perform the fix. But it means you should be sure you're investigating enough to rule out some of these things.

Assuming a fix couldn't be applied, how comfortable are we with allowing the Scry 2 after a shuffle?

Edited Marc DeArmond (March 25, 2016 05:48:42 PM)

>Assuming a fix couldn't be applied, how comfortable are we with allowing
the Scry 2 after a shuffle?

What part of policy tells you that this is a fix we can apply?

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

Assuming a fix couldn't be applied, how comfortable are we with allowing the Scry 2 after a shuffle?

What policy justification is there for doing so?

Our options in the case of a GRV are to perform a default fix, but none applies here.

If we can't do that, we can consider a rewind to the point of error. But the point of error was when the player cut - we've established that we can't rewind a cut.

So there's no supported remedy. We could deviate, if this was a significant and exceptional circumstance or one for which there isn't policy guidance - do you feel like this qualifies as significant and exceptional?

Example per the IPG of significant and exceptional circumstance: if a table falls and cards go everywhere. Maybe it is significant. Your cards have been reordered against your will with known information in it. I think you could make a case for deviation and allow a scry 2 after other options are exhausted.

Player A has half of his card (and turn) taken away because Player B wasn't paying enough attention. Randomizing the deck at an inappropriate time would be almost the same as shoving your opponents deck off the table and causing the cards to be reordered all over the ground. So, if the solution of finding scry'd cards next to each other where the deck was cut doesn't work, allow a shuffle plus scry 2 as a deviation, because, if I'm reading your responses correctly, there is no remedy in the IPG for this circumstance.

Originally posted by Jon Munck:

I think you could make a case for deviation

Please, don't do that. A table collapsing is extremely rare, has a huge impact and was not the fault of any of the people involved. Please, don't deviate for no reason.

Fair enough. I will avoid that line of thinking.