Something that I've seen in a standard-tournament and has been bugging me since that moment:

Player A plays an Augur of Bolas, looks at the top three cards, reveals a card and puts it in his hand. He puts the other two cards on the bottom of his library, shuffles his library and presents it to his opponent.

When asked, the player says he did it out of habit and it was uninentional, the judge gave him a Warning GRV.




Although I do not disagree with the floor judge, the possible advantage is pretty high, so “just a warning” might be too small of an infraction.

Originally posted by Ward Poulisse:

Although I do not disagree with the floor judge, the possible advantage is pretty high, so “just a warning” might be too small of an infraction.

Well, as a judge, you have to approach the situation to identify the infraction first. Whether there is a penalty, should be a penalty, or even the “appropriate penalty” is taken into account after the infraction is identified. Otherwise, a judge can get into trouble with reverse engineering the infraction, as trying to identify the penalty that fits a situation before figuring out that it's infraction ==> penalty (and remedy, if possible). Thinking that this situation merits a game loss… Well, that is a line of thinking you should avoid.

So, we never look at a situation and think “This is a Warning.” or “This is a Game Loss.” In fact, we shouldn't really look at a situation and think “This is the infraction.” without first gathering information to make a ruling. And if its truly an accident and the situation fits no other more specific infraction, then this is a case of Game Play Error–Game Rule Violation, and the penalty is a Warning.

Upgrading is allowed only involving situations whether the legality of the action can't be verified or if this is the third time the player has committed the infraction during the event (same day as well). After that, if you believe you can reasonably back up to the point of error, then you can get permission from the Head Judge to back up. That's unlikely here, given there's no way to verify what cards were on top. You could ask, but I'd hate to get into a situation where the player giving you the wrong information, even accidentally, leads to a more serious investigation.

Keep in mind that lots of accidents can result in a player gaining an advantage. Whether that happens or not, presuming the situation is accidental, we don't try to determine or correct for any kind of advantage that may have been gained. And the procedure of identifying infraction first, the applying the penalty, is there to ensure that you as a judge don't get accused of bias. Trying to identify “advantage” and then correct for it via the penalty (outside of where policy has already been decided) will eventually get you into more trouble. (Hence why MIPG 2 carries a caution against trying to do that.) At a minimum, it can lead to inconsistency. At worse, it can lead to some serious accusations of questionable behavior.

I think Brian sums it up very neatly. I would also like to add this thought:
If we can all agree first that GRV situations sometimes leaves one player with an advantage, is having two cards that should be on the bottom exist in a random part of the deck really such a huge advantage?
I believe this might be bugging you because the player “gets away with it” without a fix. It's understandable, I've felt like that too before. Understanding the need for consistency helped me accept that this happens though.
Hopefully Brian's reply makes you feel more okay with the situation :)

Cheers
Eskil Myrenberg

—–Original Message—–

From: Ward Poulisse
Sent: 2 Apr 2013 13:51:28 GMT
To: cartaginem@hotmail.com
Subject: unintentional shuffling (Competitive REL)

Something that I've seen in a standard-tournament and has been bugging me since that moment:

Player A plays an Augur of Bolas, looks at the top three cards, reveals a card and puts it in his hand. He puts the other two cards on the bottom of his library, shuffles his library and presents it to his opponent.

When asked, the player says he did it out of habit and it was uninentional, the judge gave him a Warning GRV.




Although I do not disagree with the floor judge, the possible advantage is pretty high, so “just a warning” might be too small of an infraction.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/18780/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3643/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3643/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

Originally posted by Ward Poulisse:

the possible advantage is pretty high

I disagree. For most circumstances, the difference between a card on the bottom and a card somewhere in the randomized portion of the deck is actually very small. The only time it has a really significant impact is if the shuffled card is the only copy remaining in the deck and the player doesn't have access to another shuffle effect. This is not an especially common set of circumstances, although it is by no means unheard of.

Also, because this extra shuffle is a tracked penalty that is extremely obvious to the opponent, there is basically no potential for systematic exploitation of this “error” over time.

If you feel the potential for advantage is high in this particular game state, you can perform an investigation as if you were going to partial fix the cards back to the bottom, asking the player to show you what he picked and what he tucked. Most players should be able to immediately tell you what cards they tucked, and most will be very willing to help you apply a partial fix since they don't actually know the IPG. Certainly do not actually apply a partial fix here, but do feel free use the player's attitude toward helping you discover the information you would need for that fix in your investigation to confirm that this was an accident.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

the difference between a card on the bottom and a card somewhere in the randomized portion of the deck is actually very small.

Unless cards on top or bottom are known from previous effects and the player would rather see them anywhere else.

Also, what if it's not an Augur of Bolas, but a legacy event and accidentaly a Brainstorm was shuffled…

Originally posted by Ward Poulisse:

Also, what if it's not an Augur of Bolas, but a legacy event and accidentaly a Brainstorm was shuffled…

As Brian has already pointed out, this is immaterial. If you think that the error was unintentional, then the infraction is GPE-GRV, and the penalty is a Warning (with no fix possible). We don't try to determine any “damage to the game state” or “advantage gained” when determining which infraction to apply. (Though you can certainly factor it in when determining whether or not you actually think it was unintentional.)

Edited Vincent Roscioli (April 12, 2013 11:13:40 AM)

And in the case of an unintentional shuffle after a Brainstorm, the chance for it be advantageous to the player is about the same as the chance for it to be disadvantageous. (I didn't need those 2 lands anyway… or, I really needed that card next turn…)

Also, if a player Brainstorms and then ‘unintentionally shuffles’ his library afterwards, I will investigate for cheating here. If it comes up to be a real, honest mistake, then it's the GRV. If it is not, it is the DQ.