Hi judges, would like your opinion on something that came up recently.

Player A has a Leonin Arbiter in play. At the end of his (Player A's) turn, Player N casts Brainstorm, puts 2 cards back, and cracks his Misty Rainforest, then proceeds to search his library.

Now, if Player A was inattentive, it's a GRV for Player N and FtMGS for Player A.

However, what if Player A had no time to react, in scenarios where we have “silent” players?
Would that warrant an investigation, assuming we are now teetering equally on both sides of the coin - Player N did not know/forgot about Leonin Arbiter or Player N did it quickly, hoping that Player A would not notice?
Or should we first issue the standard warnings and fixes, then start monitoring from there?

Your input is greatly appreciated :)

Edited Scott Marshall (June 27, 2013 09:46:37 AM)

If you think a player might be cheating, but you don't know enough to make
a judgement, investigate.

If, after you investigate, you strongly believe that he was trying to
cheat, DQ him. If you think it was an honest mistake, give a Warning.

That's pretty much how all investigations operate, regardless of our
ability to cleanly rewind the actions taken.

Unfortunately, it's very tough to meaningfully discuss specific situations
like this because there is so much more information you need to take into
account than can easily be posted to a forum. There are also a wide variety
of approaches you can take to an investigation, and nonverbal cues that are
extremely tough to put into words often determine the nature (or even the
necessity) of an investigation. If you have an experienced local judge you
can talk to and walk through some scenarios, I think you will learn a lot
more than forum posts could teach you about this particular topic.

It sounds like an investigation is warranted before any rulings get issued, as if N was acting swiftly/subtly hoping that A would not notice he was searching without payment, that sounds like textbook cheating, as he appears to be intentionally breaking a rule to gain advantage.

My understanding is that we're always sort of mini-investigating, watching for signs that something might be off…it's just certain clues (like this one) prompt a much deeper inquiry than other situations might prompt for.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (June 27, 2013 10:19:21 AM)

Just as a note- if the concern here is the shuffling away of the Brainstormed cards, keep in mind that Leonin Arbiter doesn't prevent activating Misty Rainforest or shuffling, just the actual searching. It's fine to not pay the mana and use the ability to get rid of the unwanted cards. The player just shouldn't look at the library if doing so.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Unfortunately, it's very tough to meaningfully discuss specific situations
like this because there is so much more information you need to take into
account than can easily be posted to a forum. There are also a wide variety
of approaches you can take to an investigation, and nonverbal cues that are
extremely tough to put into words often determine the nature (or even the
necessity) of an investigation. If you have an experienced local judge you
can talk to and walk through some scenarios, I think you will learn a lot
more than forum posts could teach you about this particular topic.

Yep, I'll have to agree with this. I've asked around and most have a reply of “watch that person's bodily responses when you start probing, including throwing a few red herrings just to gauge”. It's definitely better to learn from experience, hence the post - just to see if anyone here has other thoughts to chime in. Appreciate it.

Nate Hurley
Just as a note- if the concern here is the shuffling away of the Brainstormed cards, keep in mind that Leonin Arbiter doesn't prevent activating Misty Rainforest or shuffling, just the actual searching. It's fine to not pay the mana and use the ability to get rid of the unwanted cards. The player just shouldn't look at the library if doing so.

Interesting. So if this is the case, we would be at L@EC instead of a GRV infraction, if after investigation we find out that he honestly forgot about Arbiter's ability, right?

Nathaniel Lawrence
My understanding is that we're always sort of mini-investigating, watching for signs that something might be off…it's just certain clues (like this one) prompt a much deeper inquiry than other situations might prompt for.

Probably so. I do notice that, personally, Legacy matches tend to call for greater awareness due to the much larger card pool available and hence much more interactions available.

On Mon Jul 01 09:16, Andrew Teo wrote:
>

Originally posted by Nate Hurley:

Just as a note- if the concern here is the shuffling away of the Brainstormed cards, keep in mind that Leonin Arbiter doesn't prevent activating Misty Rainforest or shuffling, just the actual searching. It's fine to not pay the mana and use the ability to get rid of the unwanted cards. The player just shouldn't look at the library if doing so.

Interesting. So if this is the case, we would be at L@EC instead of a GRV infraction, if after investigation we find out that he honestly forgot about Arbiter's ability, right?

If he got a land out, it's a GRV - he clearly incorrectly resolved the ability. We backup to correctly resolving the ability, which is to say, shuffling without getting a land. Many GRVs end up with a player looking at cards he's not entitled to, we don't also give out L@EC for those.

Matt

I would never give a player a warning for L@EC if he looks at his library while he is in the process of following the shuffling instruction (I assume the player shuffles sufficiently after he stops looking at his cards)

Hmm…I see, I stand corrected, with the IPG to boot:

“Any time cards in a deck could be seen, including during shuffling, it is no longer shuffled, even if the player only knows the position of one or two cards. Players are expected to take care in shuffling not to reveal cards to themselves, their teammates, or their opponents.”

Seems like L@EC is pretty clear cut then.

Originally posted by William Anderson:

I would never give a player a warning for L@EC if he looks at his library while he is in the process of following the shuffling instruction (I assume the player shuffles sufficiently after he stops looking at his cards)

Why not? An instruction requiring a player to shuffle does not implicitly grant them permission to search their deck, and being able to look through their deck can provide extra information that without that shuffle effect they would have had to remember or figure out on their own (“Did I remember to sideboard this card in? What creatures with X CMC do I have in here?”), and thus has the potential to provide a strategic advantage.

I think Looking at Extra Cards is appropriate for a player who looks at the cards in their library during a game when not explicitly allowed to do so.

Edited Casey Brefka (July 1, 2013 10:46:51 PM)

With apologies for deviating from the original post, I think slightly differently.

Player randomly flips over one of his own cards whilst shuffling or other clumsiness? “Shuffle up some more.” (GRV LAEC specifically quotes an example of seeing an opponent's card whilst shuffling.)

Player randomly looks through his deck while shuffling not after resolving a search or similar effect? Investigate why and issue GRV LAEC or USC Cheating as appropriate.