I had this situation come up at FNM last week, and I'm not entirely sure what the proper way to handle it is.

While shuffling his library, a player accidentally shuffles one or more of his lands into his library. How should this be resolved at Regular REL? At Competitive?

Personally, I'd check for agreement with both the player and his opponent about what lands were shuffled in. If they both come to an agreement, then I would personally take those such lands out of the library and put them onto the battlefield, then have the player finish the shuffle. Remind him to be MUCH more careful when he shuffles.

Now, let's infer that they don't come to an agreement, or the opponent doesn't remember. In this situation, I would actually look at the game state (which is unusual) and see if there is a logical answer to the question. For instance, the player and the opponent both say that they've played a land down each turn, and, therefore, the player should have “x” more lands. The same could be said by looking at the mana costs and making the best decision possible given the information. For instance, the player has several cards with a mana cost of 1-4 on the field, but their hand has mana costs of all 5s (also considering that there are no cards such as High Tide or Dark Ritual in the graveyard). At this point, it would be a personal judgement call on which lands would make the “most sense,” and checking to see if both the player and the opponent would be/are satisfied by the fix.

While this kind of fix is by no means definitive in how it's resolved, it's the best we can do as judges to rectify the situation and, hopefully, make both the players happy so they can resume the game. I believe that the saying “deviate like hell” is the most fitting to this situation.

I hope my opinion helps some!

-Peter

At regular I have to second what Peter said above. While not especially pretty trying to determine what it looked like before the shuffle, that seems our best course of action.

As for competitive, which is a whole different animal. Personally I'm not going to perform any kind of fix here. Yes this means the player continues play without land. Yes, that is pretty bad for them. My reasoning is: Simply use the same procedure when a player accidentally shuffles their hand (or a portion thereof) into the deck.

As for assessing a penalty: I don't think I would assess any penalty, but I see a possible GPE in either situation (After some thought, GRV definately fits either the hand or land situation)

- Dan R.

Edited Daniel Regewitz (Oct. 17, 2012 11:48:58 AM)

Originally posted by Daniel Regewitz:

As for competitive, which is a whole different animal. Personally I'm not going to perform any kind of fix here.

How do you reconcile your suggested course of action with this Additional Remedy instruction from the GRV entry in the IPG?

MIPG 2.5
If an object is in the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.

@Christopher Hickman

Your point well taken. Because the lands were shuffled in from the battlefield, and because that's a public zone, it's certainly possible to apply that fix. Provided of course that we're presented with a case with no shenanigans, we intervene or are called by the players quickly enough, and we can be reasonably certain the resulting game state is acceptable.

Still this seems like dangerous ground to tread on, and I would want to consult with my team lead or HJ before proceeding.

Can we apply that on a card by card basis or only if we can identify all
the objects in the wrong zone?

Say both players agree there was 8 land but A believes it was 6 Swamps and
2 Islands but N thinks it was 2 Swamps and 6 Islands. Do we:
A) Give him 4 of each, splitting the difference?
B) Give him 2 of each, just the ones both players agree on?
C) Give him nothing because the players can't agree?

B&C both encourage B to be slightly unsure about what he remembers. With
any agreeing on which lands were in play we have the risk of the
encouraging the opponent to cheat. Which might be fine, as that would void
our need to determine which lands to put back into play.

I've always erred on the side of not fixing this type of situation
at competitive REL.

I have to agree with both of you here for Competitive REL. There is truly no possible way for the game to be backed up after such an error without exact details from both the opponent and the player. If they both say “he accidentally shuffled in 3 Islands” then I would back up before the shuffle with taking out the Islands (after checking with team leads or HJ) and re-shuffling.

Otherwise, I wouldn't attempt to fix this at all. In either case, there's definitely a GRV to be had for such an error.

Gareth, it's an usual case of “He said/she said”. You ask questions in order to make up your mind on what you think happened, then apply your ruling accordingly. Don't “split the difference”, because the split is unlikely to be the correct previous state of the game.

Just be sure that you convey the message to players that, as there is a disagreement on what happened, it's likely that one of the players will be unhappy, but that you have no other choice than to make the game progress, that going for the most likely doesn't mean you think he lied and that you know that he might indeed be right, and offer him a chance to appeal before you start applying your fix.

If you think one of the players is lying to you in order to get an advantage, then it's basic Serious Problem. The game fix will be quite easy as one of the players will be disqualified.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

for Competitive REL … I wouldn't attempt to fix this at all.

You might be getting too caught up in the “no partial fixes” mantra of GRV and forgetting that the bit I quoted is from the list of exceptions to that. Are you saying you don't think you should attempt a partial fix under these exceptions unless you can complete the partial fix in its entirety? Seems a little silly when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Edited Topher Hickman (Oct. 18, 2012 09:39:42 AM)