Thanks Martha, I forgot about the “once you draw it's not LEC” bit, you're right. And since the LEC was the only game action before the draw, that pretty much rules out GRV, so we are looking at DEC for the actual infraction. (with a downgrade to warning)

Ignoring the missed trigger for now, we have a DEC to worry about. There's no time where you're going to have a DEC without the player also being to look at the card, and the IPG explicitly just has us put the card back if it's known for a DEC (as opposed to LEC's shuffle). So we just put the card back.

There are precedents of having one infraction but applying remedies from other relevant areas, but I don't think that's the case here, as good as it feels to return the library to a random configuration. If more things happened afterwards and we decided a rewind was warranted, maybe. But we were called pretty quickly.

As for the MT, sure, we didn't intervene initially since we weren't planning to issue a penalty for it (or we weren't there). But we've been called to the table. I suppose you could argue that you should leave the missed trigger alone unless a player explicitly calls it out to you, but you're there… and you all know it happened and you're already intervening in the situation, and it was really the source of the whole mess. It's also good customer service to address it. And at the very least, for educational value you can set the expectation as to how it will be handled in the future.

Though we should remind them to call a judge even if they know exactly what will likely happen.

I'm going with the GPE-DEC for Abel here as well. Since both players know the identity of the card (Swamp) and its minimal disruptive to put the card back on the top of the library we have to downgrade it to a warning. Since Nancy calls for the judge as soon as possible there will be no penalty for her.

The IPG doesnt give a option to shuffle the library after the card is back on the top of it for DEC, and for me thats not a “significant and expectional circumstance” that allows to deviate from the IPG. Both players does gain private information because of the error, but thats still not a reason to try to “fix” the situation.

There is still the MT that causes the whole problem. The trigger itself is not detrimental, so no penalty for that infraction. The question is do we apply the additional remedy and give Nancy the option to put the trigger on the stack (even though its very unlikely since we didnt shuffle the library both players know the trigger would result into giving Abel one more card). We do know that missing the trigger is an infraction, even if its one where we usually don't intervene here because there is no need to give a Warning to the players. So i'm safe to say that we can point out the MT and give Nancy the option to put the trigger on the stack if she desires.

And of course remind them that whenever they have a problem the first thing they should do is raise a hand and call out for a Judge.

What I see we actually have happening here is a MT (non-detrimental variety, no warning) shortly followed by a GRV. This can't be a DEC because the IPG clearly states that a DEC is:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the
instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect
order.

In this instance the MT is a Game Play Error. Even though it isn't a GPE we'd penalize, a GPE still took place. To me this means that a DEC is not suitable which leaves us with a GRV-Warning for Abel. I'd suggest a backup to the point before putting the Pain Seer trigger on the stack, resolve the Missed Trigger by letting Nancy choose to put it on the stack, then proceed.

Without reading other answers, I would rule GRV (Warning for Abel. Nancy does not get FtMGS since she called a judge right away) and rewind with authorization from the Head Judge by putting the swamp back on top.

After that, there's also the issue of the Missed Trigger, which does not involve a penalty, since it's not a detrimental triggered ability. I would give Nancy the option of putting the trigger in the stack, and then carry on. Give them extra time if this took longer than a minute.

Cool scenario. Simple, yet there's a lot going on.

One of my first thoughts was, does Out-of-Order Sequencing apply? MTR says no:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

Then, I thought, it seems like there four different penalties going on: MT, GRV, LAEC, DEC. No matter which one(s) we apply, it seems like the penalty and fix is the same: Put the Swamp back on top, shuffle it in with the rest of the random portion of the library, ask N. if Nancy wants Abel to play the trigger, and Abel gets a Warning.

Yeah, LAEC doesn't apply for reasons previously stated.

MT won't carry a Warning regardless. Like Bob, it's not usually detrimental.

So, is it GRV or DEC? I'm going with GRV. The difference between GRV and DEC is, was there a violation of the CR that preceded and resulted in the drawn card? Yes. He resolved a trigger at the wrong time. It says to do it during his upkeep, but he did it during his draw step.

However, there's that one little example in the description on DEC that keeps getting me: drawing off of a Howling Mine that is no longer on the battlefield. Is this situation analogous? Abel is resolving a trigger that he doesn't exist. But it's not exactly the same. In the KP scenario, the trigger existed, but was played at the wrong time. In the Howling Mine example, the trigger never existed.

So I'm going with GRV, but I'm not 100% on it.

Marc, you note that a missed trigger infraction precedes the illegal action. What if instead the player had tried to resolve the trigger twice (say there were a lot of instants between each resolution during the upkeep so it's not particularly fishy) what infraction would you issue?

Please try to stay on topic. This scenario has lots going on already. We don't need to further muck it up by adding “what ifs”

:)

Originally posted by Martha Lufkin:

Whether to shuffle is an interesting question - the IPG clearly states to put the drawn card back on top of the library if its identity is known so that's what we do. But I don't really have a good answer for “why” except “because the IPG says so.” I think perhaps in some situations there may be potential for abuse.

I believe that we actually should shuffle the (unknown part of) the library.
While yes, the penalty we issue is DEC and not L@eC, L@eC also happened. It just was followed by DEC and the IPG tells us to then apply the penalty of DEC.
When fixing the situation though, I apply the remedies of all infractions that occured in opposite order, much like we do when rewinding.
First, I fix the extra card drawn, by placing swamp on top, since it is known to have been a swamp, then I fix the extra card looked at by shuffling it away. Now I am at the point prior to the first error.

I read the sentence ‘Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.’ as ‘When L@eC happens, and the offending player places the card in his hand, he has now (also) commited DEC, so apply DEC’.
Or, in other words, 'Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer only Looking at Extra Cards.'

Just because a player commits a second infraction, doesn't mean he did not commit the first infraction anymore. The second wrong doesn't make the first wrong a right. We just choose to only penalize the more severe infraction, if multiple infractions happened, but still, all infractions happened.

What rule allows the active player to reveal the top card of his or her library?

I think Toby might be alluding to the discussion about DEC vs GRV.

I believe this lies firmly on the GRV side.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

He pauses for a second, says, “Oh!” points to his Pain Seer, then reveals the top card of his library, which is a Swamp. He says “Swamp. Lose zero,” and puts it in his hand.

Don't think of it as “Abel started to resolve a trigger that wasn't there”. It's “Abel revealed a swamp”.

The reason why the Howling Mine trigger (from a Howling Mine that has since left the battlefield) is DEC is because the very first thing that happens to resolve a Howling Mine trigger is to draw a card. No physically evident errors prior.

I still don't see why we don't shuffle the library if we follow the route of putting the swamp back (After going through the steps to determine what cards are known, etc.). It doesn't seem right to let someone know the next card of their deck, potentially gaining an advantage, off of making a mistake like that. The library is supposed to be fully randomized, why are we allowing parts of it to be de-randomized due to a GRV occurring?

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

I think Toby might be alluding to the discussion about DEC vs GRV.

I believe this lies firmly on the GRV side.

I believe he is alluding to the exact opposite, actually. What rule allowed Abel to reveal the Swamp? There isn't one. Abel saying “oops” and pointing to his Pain Seer does not suddenly put the ability on the stack - that Abel -thinks- he is resolving it is an error on his part, but does not constitute a GRV. Abel revealed a Swamp and then put it into his hand; that's a DEC.

I agree with Aaron. I would give DEC-Warning, since the opponent can identify the card drawn. The player missed a non-detrimental trigger, drew for turn, then revealed the top card of his library and put it in his hand. There is no GRV here that would allow him to draw the card. I would discuss what happened with the players and then return the Swamp to the top of Abel's library. I would not shuffle and ask the opponent if he wants the trigger on the stack. Also reminding Abel to call a judge before trying to resolve any other missed triggers.

Missing the Pain Seer's trigger matches GPE-Missed Triggers (second option). The ability is not detrimental, so no Warning applies.

Abel's actions while playing the Pain Seer's trigger ability qualifies as both LAEC and DEC. However, the GPE-Missed Triggers immediately preceded the illegal action, meeting the restriction on DEC, so the DEC penalty does not apply. This leaves only the LAEC penalty.

Abel gets a Warning for GPE-Looking at Extra Cards.
Nancy would get no penalties.

Apply all of the fixes: Return the swamp to the top of the deck (DEC remedy with known card). Shuffle the legally unknown parts of the deck including the swamp (LAEC). Ask Nancy if she wants to add the ability to the stack. (MT)

There's some inaccurate terminology floating around. While it's not a big deal, I think it's important to be accurate.

Triggers are either considered Generally Detrimental or they're not.
As far as the rules are concerned there are no such things as:
Detrimental triggers
Non detrimental triggers
Beneficial triggers

It's a minor thing, but if we use the right terminology here, we will use it with players, and help avoid confusion when explaining things to them.