In a PPTQ near you, António plays Oath of Nissa, picks up 3 cards, places 2 in the bottom and the other in his hand without revealing it. Players call a judge.

After ruling out cheating, what would you rule as Infraction/Penalty/Fix?

Would it be a GPE-HCE-Warning?

Have the opponent look at Antonio's hand and choose a card to be the unrevealed card chosen from Oath of Nissa. If that card is a Land, Creature or Planeswalker, all is well and move on, if it is not, it is treated as an excess card and returned to the library (shuffled in) while keeping the other two cards on the bottom separate along with any other known cards (check graveyard etc).

Why would we not repeat the instructions that brought AP the “excess” card? The most recent policy changes included this line of text (article here):

“Now that we have more elegant fixes, that blunt approach isn’t needed, so we’ve dropped the “don’t repeat the action” line. If I put that card in my hand now, the hand is revealed and the opponent selects a card. If it’s a land, we’re all done. If it isn’t, that card gets shuffled in… and I do the search again, hopefully properly this time.”

While this isn't a search, it's very easy for us to repeat the instruction just the same. We can take the card chosen by NAP, which in this case is not a land, creature, or planeswalker, and then take the bottom two cards of the library. At that point AP needs to reveal a valid choice from among those three cards, or put all 3 on bottom.

Still HCE, still a warning.

I'll just go ahead and add Official agreement to what Christopher wrote.

(but I'll put heavy emphasis on ruling out Cheating, from the OP. Putting the wrong kind of card in hand without revealing is … “odd”, to say the least.

d:^D

That is the fix I would apply from the top of my head but reading the IPG made me doubt it.

Scott, where from the IPG should we infer that is the correct fix? The strict applying of what is written seems to indicate the fix Callum suggested. Or by "…returned to the correct location..." we should interpret the set of 3 cards as the correct location?

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

That is the fix I would apply from the top of my head but reading the IPG made me doubt it.

Scott, where from the IPG should we infer that is the correct fix? The strict applying of what is written seems to indicate the fix Callum suggested. Or by “…returned to the correct location…” we should interpret the set of 3 cards as the correct location?

I would like to second that the text could be clearer, and the only reason I am aware of the correct fix is from reading Toby's blog. Prior to this we had the explicit text, if I recall correctly, that stated we did not repeat the instruction. The removal of it doesn't make it clear that we should be repeating this action. Currently, the text seems to imply if the choice made by NAP (in this case) was not valid, we should treat that card as excess which means it goes away.