Actually this Happens in my last FNM but i just wonder if this happen in Competitive REL (I want to learn more because im pursuing for L2) so i modify this scenario for discussion.
You’re the Head judge at PPTQ
Edward declare his creatures as attacker in response after Edward finish to declare attack of his creatures Valian cast Glimmer of genius then resolve. Edward pass the turn and Valian in response at Edward end turn, he cast anticipate. But he resolve as Glimmer of genius he scry 2 then keep one in bottom and one on top then draw two cards (he have 2 other cards in his hands) after he draw and want to put anticipate to graveyard he realize that he took an illegal action then immediately call a Judge an explain as he tired because his first time use control deck and play till late game he think that he cast glimmer of genius and you believe it. You’ll give Valian GPE- Hidden card Error and warning as penalty.
So, i want to discuss what remedy would you give?
I have 3 scenario:
1. Valian scry 2 keep one in bottom and one in top then draw 2.
2. Valian scry 2 keep both on top then draw 2
3. Valian scry 2 keep both on bottom then draw 2
Would you give the same remedy for all scenarios or diffrent for each scenarios? And what would you give if its different for each scenarios?

*** Glimmer of genius Scry 2, then draw two cards. You get EnergyEnergy (two energy counters).
*** Anticipate look at the top three cards of your library. Put one of them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.

Thank you for participate.

here i make more simple for my question.
At End of Turn, NAP casts Anticipate, but resolve it as if it was Glimmer of Genius.
NAP Scries 2, then put 1 card to top, 1 to bottom, then draws 2 cards.
NAP realized that they had done a mistake, and calls the Judge.

When asked by the judge, NAP said that they make this mistake because they have previously casted Glimmer of Genius on this turn.
AP confirms this, and the judge believes it.


What is the appropriate infraction and remedy for NAP on* 3scenarios below* ?

1. NAP scry 2 keep one card in bottom.library and one on top library then draw 2
2. NAP scry 2 keep both cards on top library then draw 2
3. NAP scry 2 keep both cards on bottom library then draw 2

Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 9, 2017 06:48:06 PM)

Wendra, would you agree it's… IPG 2.3 Game Play Error — Hidden Card Error.

After ruling out cheating, it's rather close to the example of … A. A player draws four cards after casting Ancestral Recall. (there's also an example of Anticipate, where they Anticipate for 4).

The penalty is a warning.

The fix is the “thoughtseize” fix. (If the set contains more cards than it is supposed to contain, the player reveals the set of cards that contains the excess and his or her opponent chooses a number of previously-unknown cards sufficient to reduce the set to the correct size. The cards chosen are treated as excess cards)

The only major difference I can see is in determining the “random part of the library”… The card or 2 cards on the bottom can be argued to “belong there” (per the scry vs anticipate being resolved correctly)…likewise, if the players remember the previous glimmer and other other such effects, more cards may be held back from randomization.

Interesting scenario!

At first, my instinct said that the “fairest” and “least-disruptive” fix would be to “thoughtseize fix” 2 cards from hand to the top of the library, return any bottom-scried cards to the top, and re-resolve Anticipate. That would be true to the nature of the mistake, and would effectively be backing up a GRV.

However, looking over the individual actions again, there's really no infraction until NAP draws the second card. Any scried cards (to top or bottom) can be considered to be in the set of 3 cards Anticipate allowed NAP to look at, and Anticipate allowed NAP to “draw” either of those 2 cards or the next card on the top of the library.

So it seems like the appropriate call is HCE, “thoughtseize fix” 1 card from hand to the random portion of the library. The non-random portion of the library would be 2 cards: X cards that were scried to the bottom, plus 2-X cards from the top of the library that need to be put on the bottom as per Anticipate.

Now I'm really curious to read everyone else's thoughts.

If Anticipate resolved correctly, NAP is supposed to have one card in their hand, and two cards known on the bottom of the library. Because the cards are supposed to be known, not random, I think the best fix would be to not do any shuffling – after revealing the hand to AP and having them select one card to get rid of, I'd put it on the bottom or second-from-the-bottom of their library.

I'm confused why the proposed solutions all have NAP drawing two cards. NAP drew 2 of their top 3 cards, when they should have had 1 of their top 3 cards in hand – that's one extra card we should take away, and other than deciding where to put the extra card, that feels like the end of the problem to me. I would not have NAP draw any cards, and I'm not sure where the “draw two cards” is coming from.

Two cards on top: Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses two cards among them (A&B). Valian resolves Anticipate as though A and B were the top cards of his library (meaning he can look at one more card from the top before choosing).

One card on top, one card on bottom: Retrieve the card from the bottom (A). Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses two cards among them (B&C). Valian resolves Anticipate as though A, B, and C were the top cards of his library.

Two cards on the bottom: Retrieve the two cards from the bottom (A & B). Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses a card from Valian's hand to be shuffled in the random portion of the library (C), then another card (D). Valian resolves Anticipata as though A, B, and D were the top cards of his library.

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 10, 2017 08:02:21 AM)

Why are we “resolving” the anticipate after the Thoughtseize fix? My understanding is you don't get a “do over” on the thing that cause the HCE.

Brook: my second proposed solution does not have NAP draw two cards. In fact, it is identical to your solution in certain cases. I would note that if 2 cards were scried to the bottom before NAP drew 2 cards (by mistake), the extra card should definitely be shuffled in—that would be a 4th card looked at, not allowed by Anticipate.

Mark: I think Florian is treating this as a GRV backup, but using the “Thoughtseize fix” instead of choosing random cards. This might be a good illustration why we don't want to go that route.

David: Indeed, I do. That's more or less how I understand HCE. I don't see how this case would be a cautionary tale against this approach.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Two cards on top: Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses two cards among them (A&B). Valian resolves Anticipate as though A and B were the top cards of his library (meaning he can look at one more card from the top before choosing).

One card on top, one card on bottom: Retrieve the card from the bottom (A). Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses two cards among them (B&C). Valian resolves Anticipate as though A, B, and C were the top cards of his library.

Two cards on the bottom: Retrieve the two cards from the bottom (A & B). Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses a card from Valian's hand to be shuffled in the random portion of the library (C), then another card (D). Valian resolves Anticipata as though A, B, and D were the top cards of his library.

Florian:
**for two cards on top scenario
one card on top, one card one bottom scenario>> reveal valian's hand, edward chooses one card among them then put that choosen card on bottom library.
** for two cards on bottom: Reveal Valian's hand. Edward chooses a card from Valian's hand to be shuffled in the random portion of the library, but keep two cards (scried by valian) on bottom
can i use this remedy for scenarios above?

Florian: Are you ruling this as GRV or HCE?

HCE says you can backup prior to fixing, but your solution has us applying the fix, then backing up. HCE also doesn't seem to support re-doing actions.

GRV says you can backup, but backups specifically return random cards to the library, not “thoughtseize fix”-ed cards.

Don't get me wrong, I like your solution—it's what I came up with initially—but I'm having difficulty supporting it with the documents we currently have.

Wendra: I can see an argument for these, but they seem less organic that what I propose (which is why I proposed mine). My

David: I rule this as HCE. My treatment is essentially the one for “If the error involves one or more cards that were supposed to be revealed”, which seems appropriate here.

I think the spirit of “…cards that were supposed to be revealed” is that conditions and restrictions that were supposed to be checked can be checked. Since we don't have cards being revealed—only looked at—I don't think it applies here.

Also, if we're treating this as HCE, the error occurred with the second card drawn—nothing illegal happened when the first card is drawn! (The first card drawn is guaranteed to have come from the set of cards NAP was entitled to look at.) Choosing two cards to “thoughtseize-fix” seems overly complicated when it's only one card that's in excess.

One more thought (which doesn't affect the ruling, I know): your solutions seem to allow NAP to mitigate losses better, since NAP gets to re-choose the card to add to hand after two cards are removed. AP doesn't get to remove the best card—NAP just gets to put it back into hand. As such, if NAP came by this situation dishonestly, they basically suffer no consequences other than a hand reveal.

I don't agree that there was no mistake before the second card drawn. Where in Anticipate's text do you Scry 2 ? Puting a card back on the bottom of the library, or drawing a card before looking at the third card is already a mistake. It is something that could be “retconned” into a legal play quite easily, but it is not “correct”, so I'm not inclined to look at this point to determine “the point where something went wrong”.

Yes, my solution allows NAP to mitigates losses better. I feel that it is exactly what HCE is trying to achieve: “Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to generate advantage”.

Saying that there is no consequence is a bit of a stretch: NAP will always lose the second-best card in their hand, sometimes the best one. This card might be the extra card they drew, but it could also be a card that was sitting in their hand for a while: we cannot be sure, so we go to the worst of the possible scenarios, by letting the opponent choose which card was incorrectly drawn.

If NAP is dishonest, the infraction is Cheating and the penalty is DQ. I don't think it should affect the way we deal with the way we treat this situation.

Note also that, in this discussion, we considered that NAP acted really fast, without announcing anything. If he said something like “Scry” or “one on top, one on the bottom” before drawing 2, AP would have a chance to catch it, and we would likely treat that as a GRV (in which case, my fix would mostly be the same, but with a random card from the unrevealed hand instead of the thoughtseize fix).

Edited Florian Horn (Jan. 13, 2017 07:54:10 AM)

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Saying that there is no consequence is a bit of a stretch: NAP will always lose the second-best card in their hand, sometimes the best one. This card might be the extra card they drew, but it could also be a card that was sitting in their hand for a while: we cannot be sure, so we go to the worst of the possible scenarios, by letting the opponent choose which card was incorrectly drawn.

Whoops, you're right there. Somehow I convinced myself there was only one card getting returned instead of two. My bad.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Yes, my solution allows NAP to mitigates losses better. I feel that it is exactly what HCE is trying to achieve: “Though the game state cannot be reversed to the ‘correct’ state, this error can be mitigated by giving the opponent sufficient knowledge and ability to offset the error so that it is less likely to generate advantage”.

HCE says nothing here about trying to protect the player committing the infraction, only about helping the opponent offset the error. Helping the player mitigate the damage from the opponent's offset doesn't appear to be a goal.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I don't agree that there was no mistake before the second card drawn. Where in Anticipate's text do you Scry 2 ?

If you think the error occurred before the second card was drawn—because of incorrectly scrying, for example—then doesn't the infraction have to be GRV?

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Note also that, in this discussion, we considered that NAP acted really fast, without announcing anything. If he said something like “Scry” or “one on top, one on the bottom” before drawing 2, AP would have a chance to catch it, and we would likely treat that as a GRV (in which case, my fix would mostly be the same, but with a random card from the unrevealed hand instead of the thoughtseize fix).

It sounds like you're saying that the infraction should be different, depending on the speed of the player and the amount of communication. That seems… strange?