Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I don't like this. Do we want to base our ruling on such nuances in what the player says? I can easily imagine a player who would try to manipulate the judge to a specific infraction/remedy.

I agree wholeheartedly. My additional problem with this is that it is incongruous with current policy.

Why is it that if a player draws a card to their hand and both players agree which card it is we are supposed to treat the cards as unidentifiable even if the players agree as to which card it is - but with this version of events we take the players' version of reality into consideration when making a ruling?

Rulings like this lead to confusion of remedies among players, and make fixes “feel” arbitrary even though we judges view the situations that cause them differently.

“Judge, why won't you listen to both my opponent and I when we're telling you that I accidentally drew *this* card! You listened to that other player and his opponent when he pondered for 4 cards just a minute ago!”

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I don't like this. Do we want to base our ruling on such nuances in what the player says? I can easily imagine a player who would try to manipulate the judge to a specific infraction/remedy.

Why is it that if a player draws a card to their hand and both players agree which card it is we are supposed to treat the cards as unidentifiable even if the players agree as to which card it is - but with this version of events we take the players' version of reality into consideration when making a ruling?

I assume you're thinking about the following situations:

*A player picks up 2 cards when they should Scry 1 and holds them above their library, having now seen the second one down - both players agree, we call it LEC, and we shuffle away the second one and allow them to Scry the top card.

*A player picks up the top card of their deck and places it on top of their face down hand, but they should not have drawn, and both players can agree which card it is, but since it is with the rest of the hand, and no one knew what it was before, it is HCE and we apply the HCE fix.

Treating these two situations differently even though we ask players what happened is not “incongruous with current policy.” The former is a “simple dexterity error” and why it is rolled into LEC instead of HCE, and we discover that via an investigation (asking questions). The latter, even after asking questions, can not be considered a “simple dexterity error” and is in no way LEC, and is definitely treated as HCE.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/01/07/the-tricks-the-brain-can-play/

Unfortunately the video link no longer works, but having watched it a lot, I can confirm that Toby's description is pretty accurate. This is pre-HCE, back when Drawing Extra Cards was a Game Loss.

This incident shows just how fuzzy memory is. There's a lot of potential for abuse once you start mixing cards together, and the hand is a fine line to draw for where we no longer allow leniency for this reason.

Hello Matt and Riki! I'm super excited to be joined in this conversation by you guys because I've been meaning to have this discussion for a little while. I've asked this question in private 1-1 conversations with a few L3's but not received a satisfying answer.

Originally posted by Matt Braddock:

*A player picks up 2 cards when they should Scry 1 and holds them above their library, having now seen the second one down - both players agree, we call it LEC, and we shuffle away the second one and allow them to Scry the top card.

I believe this situation as described is not supported by the IPG. As per the IPG, I think both cards should be shuffled into the unknown portion of the library.

The additional remedy for LEC is, “Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck, then put any known cards back in their correct locations.”

It is my assertion that the phrase "known cards“ means ”cards which are known to be public information, through an effect such as Future Sight or Courser of Kruphix.“ The only way I'd make an exception to this would be if the opponent looks at me (before seeing the LEC'd cards) and says something along the lines of ”Judge I just used my JtMS to fateseal my opponent and I put a Tundra on top. It was signed with gold ink."

It does not say anything about asking the players' opinions on which card was on top and using their agreement as a basis for keeping one card on top of the library and shuffling the rest of the unknown portion.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

This incident shows just how fuzzy memory is. There's a lot of potential for abuse once you start mixing cards together, and the hand is a fine line to draw for where we no longer allow leniency for this reason.

I agree that memory is fuzzy and I see the potential for abuse. I do not think that players' recollection of which card was in which order should be a basis for our fixes and that the line should be drawn more firmly in this situation, not just when dealing with cards in hand.

Edited Russell Deutsch (Feb. 27, 2017 03:55:27 PM)

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

I believe this situation as described is not supported by the IPG. As per the IPG, I think both cards should be shuffled into the unknown portion of the library.
The additional remedy for LEC is, “Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck, then put any known cards back in their correct locations.”

I don't see why both cards should be shuffled in here. The warning is for looking at extra cards. When resolving Scry 1, you're entiteled to look at the first card. The additional remedy for LEC is about how to deal with just the extra cards, so “any previously unknown cards” would have to be among the extra cards the player looked at.

The way I see it, either you decide that this is a clear dexterity error-LEC (if the extra card clearly being stuck to the first etc) and shuffle away the second card, or you decide the cards has actually been added to another set, and you rule it as HCE. Or am I mistaken here? I guess there is a grey area inbetween, but I don't see how the LEC-section of the ipg supports shuffling away the legally seen card in addition to the second, as it isn't an extra card (and if we cannot be sure which card it is, then it will fit the HCE description in most cases).

That being said, some of the wording confuse me as well. In the LEC-section, i believe the “dexterity error”-part describes when cards are accidently knocked over or stuck to another card (without being mixed up with cards in another set), which makes sense as these situations are easy to correct with the normal LEC fix. LEC doesn't evenstate what to do if we don't know which of the cards were the extra card, and the HCE-definition doesn't rule out all dexterity errors, only the simple ones as mentioned above.

However, the HCE-definition includes the following: “The cards themselves must be part of a distinct set intended by the player”. If this just means that the player must have intended the set to be distinct from other cards, like when resolving ponder/anticipate, this is consistent with everything above, but if this line actually means that the player would have to intend to add the cards to the set for it to be HCE, then I'm confused as well on what to do when a player accidentally mixes in cards with another set.

The way I understand it at the moment is that as soon as a player puts a card into a set of cards (for example the scry 1) we usually go back to HCE (unless we can trace it back to a GRV). This means that unless the card is actually flipped on the table and not put in a set we treat this as HCE and simply put one of the opponents choice back.

I don't think the intention of the new rule was to generate L@EC where a HCE would be the better fix but it seems many people want L@EC as the default which it shouldn't be. L@EC is there for moments were cards are not in sets but seen. This might happen with clearly distinguishable cards. (This is sometimes the case when both players are certain that one specific card was the last drawn and where HCE would be too harsh.)

Originally posted by Markus Bauer:

The way I understand it at the moment is that as soon as a player puts a card into a set of cards (for example the scry 1) we usually go back to HCE (unless we can trace it back to a GRV). This means that unless the card is actually flipped on the table and not put in a set we treat this as HCE and simply put one of the opponents choice back.

Except the IPG specifically states:

Originally posted by IPG 2.3:

This infraction does not apply to simple dexterity errors, such as when a card being pulled off the
library sticks to another card and is seen

This covers the situation of picking up two cards which stick together when attempting to Scry 1. Yes, there are now 2 cards in the set, but this qualifies as a simple dexterity error, which the HCE section of the IPG specifically tells you it does not cover (because the intention of the player was not to create a set of 2 cards).

I don't understand the fuss over determining intention. It is our duty to investigate when we take a call (every call), which can be as simple as “how did this happen?” or “why did you do that?”

Originally posted by Matt Braddock:

This covers the situation of picking up two cards which stick together when attempting to Scry 1. Yes, there are now 2 cards in the set, but this qualifies as a simple dexterity error, which the HCE section of the IPG specifically tells you it does not cover (because the intention of the player was not to create a set of 2 cards).

I don't understand the fuss over determining intention. It is our duty to investigate when we take a call (every call), which can be as simple as “how did this happen?” or “why did you do that?”

Because this would seemingly contradict Scott's answer from earlier in the thread (http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/208587/), which may indicate the “simple dexterity error” wording from HCE is applying to situations where the opponent can't confirm the “extra card” to the set.

It almost reminds me of when “everything” was a Player Communication Error, even when that wasn't the intent of the infraction and the Player Communication Policy didn't apply.

It is one thing when we have a card that is knocked off from the top of the library in the process of drawing cards (this extra card isn't part of the intended set and is distinct from that set). I could even see the line when the person is counting out cards, and grabs an extra one in the process of getting the last card (these two cards aren't part of the intended set that's already been counted out and is distinct from that set). Having the extra card actually part of the set, “simple dexterity error” or not, puts us in a situation where the player who can see the cards has a pretty decent amount of influence over the outcome.

Investigation notwithstanding, giving the player an opportunity to influence the outcome in this situation, is not ideal to me.

Originally posted by Matt Braddock:

This covers the situation of picking up two cards which stick together when attempting to Scry 1. Yes, there are now 2 cards in the set, but this qualifies as a simple dexterity error, which the HCE section of the IPG specifically tells you it does not cover (because the intention of the player was not to create a set of 2 cards).

I don't understand the fuss over determining intention. It is our duty to investigate when we take a call (every call), which can be as simple as “how did this happen?” or “why did you do that?”

It is not about Intention once they are in another set according to IPG:
Once those cards have joined another set, the infraction is handled as a Hidden Card Error or Game Rule
Violation.

So while we do make the loop over L@EC it is in a set of cards that it shouldn't be in and we go right back to HCE.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Since this is Ponder, I'm assuming that the 4 cards were never added to the hand (your original post implies that much). If that's true, then we're probably going to investigate just a bit, confirm that it was an honest error, and shuffle those 4 into the random portion of the library, before resolving Ponder correctly.

Scott, what is the idea behind this test manipulation (strike-through) you chose? What do you want me to understand when I read a line you've struck?

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

Scott,what is the idea behind this test manipulation (strike-through) you chose? What do you want me to understand when I read a line you've struck?

It appears to me that Scott edited the post you quoted once he realized his initial response was erroneous. For posterity, he elected to strike through the incorrect statements instead of removing them entirely (which could cause confusion with other responses that had been made in the time sense). Basically it's an “ignore this text, it's wrong” indication.

Matt's correct - strike-through is a common convention for corrected text.

d:^D