Player A casts Gonti, Lord of Luxury exiling a card of N face down. They never cast it and after the game ends, N wants to see the card. A doesn't want N to see it so they grab the card and put it somewhere in N's deck.

Is N entitled to see the card?
If so, is A breaking any rules by putting the card back in N's deck?

Once the game is over, that's it. There's no game anymore and the rules don't define what happens to cards outside of the game.

N can do what they like with their property outside of a game, including look at a card they own that happens to be currently laying on the table. A is interfering with something that does not belong to them in a manner that we can reasonably expect to affect the comfort level of the owner.

Issue A a Warning for Unsporting Conduct - Minor and have a serious chat with them about unsporting conduct.

My read through the documents doesn't show any rule requiring the face-down card to be revealed (as it's not a permanent or spell). So I think that technically A is not breaking any rules by destroying the information of what card was chosen.

That said, A handling N's cards without permission is absolutely not okay. I would probably issue a USC-Minor to A because they have handled N's cards contrary to N's wishes (not merely without permission), and N should be able to expect that their stated desires about the treatment of their property be respected. Even if you don't decide that this is USC-Minor, you should still have a serious talk with A about respecting other peoples' belongings and wishes relating to those belongings.

Originally posted by IPG 4.1, USC - Minor:

A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants. It may affect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.

Philosophy:
All participants should expect a safe and enjoyable environment at a tournament, and a player needs to be made aware if their behavior is unacceptable so that this environment may be maintained.

I agree with Sophie. While the rules don't explicitly allow Player N to look at the card, neither do they explicitly disallow it, and Player N is allowed to do what they want with their card. Player A forcefully manipulating Player N's property is absolutely unacceptable and should result in a serious talk being had with that player.

It seems to me that this small action is very disruptive strategically speaking (since N can't know the line of play that A chose when resolving Gonti), so I don't know if I feel confortable with UC-Minor/Warning.

I mean, I would definitely not be ok with that if A took N's deck to look through the cards. I know it's not the same thing, but I believe it would be the same penalty.

Another point to consider, at the moment A shuffles the card, N can't look at the other cards in his library to find out which card Gonti exiled (what would provide him the answer he's looking, even if he was not entitled to look at the card).

Originally posted by Caue Hattori:

It seems to me that this small action is very disruptive strategically speaking (since N can't know the line of play that A chose when resolving Gonti), so I don't know if I feel confortable with UC-Minor/Warning.

I mean, I would definitely not be ok with that if A took N's deck to look through the cards. I know it's not the same thing, but I believe it would be the same penalty.

Another point to consider, at the moment A shuffles the card, N can't look at the other cards in his library to find out which card Gonti exiled (what would provide him the answer he's looking, even if he was not entitled to look at the card).

The act of not allowing N to look at their own cards is not, in itself, USC Minor. It is the disrespectful handling of someone else's property that's earning them a penalty; they're distinct things. The players should call a judge to resolve this disagreement and instead one of them has done something inappropriate.

Originally posted by Caue Hattori:

(what would provide him the answer he's looking, even if he was not entitled to look at the card).

I don't understand what you mean by not being entitled to see the card. The game has ended and N is the owner of the cards, therefore they're perfectly entitled to see their own cards.

Originally posted by Erin Murphy:

Originally posted by Caue Hattori:

(what would provide him the answer he's looking, even if he was not entitled to look at the card).

I don't understand what you mean by not being entitled to see the card. The game has ended and N is the owner of the cards, therefore they're perfectly entitled to see their own cards.

As a reminder, exiled zone is shared - there is no ‘Player1 exiled zone’ and ‘Player2 exiled zone’.
So, NAP owns a face down card in exiled zone, and at the end of the game he looks at it. That's fine.

I guess that “not entitled to see the card” means that, in a MTGO game, N would not know what card A exiled. In that sense, letting N see the card is a concession to the fact that we play with physical cards. There are similar patterns with Sylvan Library.

I do agree that N is allowed to see their card.

Edited Florian Horn (June 15, 2018 03:47:10 PM)

I agree that N can see his card, and that's exactly my point. I have access to one point of information that I could use strategically (for the next game, if it exists), my opponent won't allow me to have access to this information, which is disruptive, and he does so in a manner that don't allow me to stop him.

I can see the UC-Minor for “handling my cards”, but it seems to me that there's something else, disruptive for the (next) game, and we are just ignoring it.