Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

Issue is that NAP did not actually break any rules (he gave 5 cards but as long as noone sees them, there is not any rule infraction and if anyone sees them, it will be this one who is responsible, not the only picking the cards from Library).

Is this really true? If Gonti weren't involved, is it really ok for me to hand my opponent some face down cards from the top of my library for no reason, and if they look at them they get the infraction?

I suppose the answer is that if I'm doing it “for no reason”, I'm doing it to cheat, and that's the problem. But in any situation like this one where there's a reasonable explanation for the mistake, it seems too generous to me to say that it's totally ok to just move cards around in a totally incorrect fashion. A philosophy like that directly encourages sloppy play.

I'm not saying we should penalize a player who pulls five face down cards, puts them down, notices, and quickly puts the bottom one back – but it seems at least philosophically if not literally that handing five cards to your opponent and not noticing is a violation of the player's responsibility to maintain a clear game state.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Two random thoughts:

- I really would like a way to keep track of NAP error.

Double GRV does that nicely.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

- I don't like the “reshuffle and draw 4 new cards” backup. I envision AP thinking:
“5 cards instead of 4. No one I really like. let's call the judge, and spin the wheel again”.

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

On the fix: I'm ok with the backup, but I wouldn't randomize all the cards in the library. I usually don't like to allow a player to see a completely new set of cards in such situations. Randomizing just one card leaves the set as close as possible to the it should have been.
So we can put back all the 5 cards in a random order, we can let AP pick up the top 4 cards and then we can shuffle the deck to lose track of the fifth card that was on the top.

I am assuming that Francesco's reasoning is also the reasoning for Jacopo. I do see your point that it gives a window of opportunity to AP, but I feel it is a deviation and it is not worth it. For AP to do this NAP would have to first give him too many cards (after all, if NAP was not involved it is a HCE and it easier to deal with). If AP then gets this window of opportunity it would be cheating to take advantage of it. He would have to be willing to risk getting caught. I feel that these things combined are so unlikely that it is not worth the deviation.

It’s not just a matter of “cheating window”.
It’s also a matter of the number of hidden informations we are giving with the fix.
If we shuffle back the 5 cards and we give to AP other 4, we are giving him a lot of possible new informations that can be relevant for the game plan (he has more chance to see sideboard cards, or things like that for example).
Hidden infos are vital for the game, that’s why I’d prefer to shuffle back just one card. :)

Originally posted by Jacopo Strati:

It’s not just a matter of “cheating window”.
It’s also a matter of the number of hidden informations we are giving with the fix.
If we shuffle back the 5 cards and we give to AP other 4, we are giving him a lot of possible new informations that can be relevant for the game plan (he has more chance to see sideboard cards, or things like that for example).
Hidden infos are vital for the game, that’s why I’d prefer to shuffle back just one card. :)

Ah yeah that's a completely different reason. Good point, I agree

It does feel in the spirit of LEC. NAP put 5 cards instead of 4 because of dexterity error and AP, believing that he is picking only 4 cards, looked at them.
As for a fix, if it is possible to determine which card is the 5th one, shuffle it. Otherwise, shuffle a random card into a random portion of the deck.

Edited Gediminas Usevičius (Nov. 17, 2017 07:17:54 PM)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

- I don't like the “reshuffle and draw 4 new cards” backup. I envision AP thinking:
“5 cards instead of 4. No one I really like. let's call the judge, and spin the wheel again”.

That is likely something that a player could think of, but since this fix is not really supported by any infraction, I think we can put this scenario aside.

I have had a nightly thought.

“the top four cards of target opponent's library” … which kind of information is this?
Can we say it's a derived information?
When NAP hands AP five cards, can we say he is misrepresenting derived information … so he is committing a CPV?

Communication Policy Violation requires an active attempt to explicitly communicate, and a failure while doing so. Don't try to define any interaction as an implicit communication to make it fit into CPV. It's not the philosophy of that infraction.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Théo CHENG:

That is likely something that a player could think of, but since this fix is not really supported by any infraction, I think we can put this scenario aside.

Well said, Théo. There's no clean remedy, and it's a very unusual case.

The infraction is GRV, and I'd absolutely give it to the player who made the error - i.e., the one who took five cards instead of four. As for remedy, there's no single, “right” answer; I think I'd take one card at random, shuffle it into the random portion of the library, and let AP continue to resolve Gonti.

d:^D

Just so I dont misunderstand you, Scott.

The one “who took five cards instead of four” is NAP or AP in this situation?

Remember, this is just my take on what I’d probably do; in the OP, NAP took five cards from their own library - that’s the error, so that player gets the Warning.

d:^D

Yeah I know that it's your take. :) Just wanted to make sure I got you right there and I agree with you.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The infraction is GRV, and I'd absolutely give it to the player who made the error - i.e., the one who took five cards instead of four. As for remedy, there's no single, “right” answer; I think I'd take one card at random, shuffle it into the random portion of the library, and let AP continue to resolve Gonti.

d:^D

Ok!
While we are at it …
player1 shuffles and presents. Player2 shuffles, and hands player1 eight cards instead of seven. Player1 looks at the eight cards.
what would you do In this case? same as Gonti, GRV to player2 and shuffle a card at random?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Ok!
While we are at it …
player1 shuffles and presents. Player2 shuffles, and hands player1 eight cards instead of seven. Player1 looks at the eight cards.
what would you do In this case? same as Gonti, GRV to player2 and shuffle a card at random?

I don't think we need to try and come up with completely unrealistic scenarios to explore this any more

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

I don't think we need to try and come up with completely unrealistic scenarios to explore this any more

Indeed, it actually happened, but Ok, let's stop here.