"Judge! I cast Whir of Invention to get my Prophetic Prism and I totally forgot to pass the deck to my opponent to cut before I drew my card. What do we do now?"

Assuming no cheating, I'm thinking the infraction would be TE: Insuffecient Shuffling. Remedy is we shuffle the deck.

But do we do anything with the drawn card? Would it be a different infraction?

Ghost_Stache

Edited Kyle Gorbski (Jan. 31, 2017 04:05:54 AM)

Hi Kyle,

You seem to be well supported by policy. TE-IS first example reads… A. A player forgets to shuffle his library after searching for a card.

That he drew the evidence it was forgotten because a trigger was resolved that should have followed the shuffling.

If there is ONLY one card in hand, we could do a simple back up, put the card on top, shuffle, and then resolve the draw trigger after NAP shuffles/cuts. If there is more than one card, we cannot know which one was drawn, so issue the warning and ask them to play more carefully.

Imagine, if there was another situation. Say “Attune with Aether” Search for a land, fail to shuffle, pass turn. Opponent plays a land, pass turn. Player draws a card and remember this was on the top of their deck when the searched, calls, say they didn't shuffle.

I don't think we'd do anything else to fix this. The event that made the game state wrong was the failure to shuffle not the card draw. Yes?

Warmly,

Mark

Originally posted by Kyle Gorbski:

"Judge! I cast Whir of Invention to get my Prophetic Prism and I totally forgot to pass the deck to my opponent to cut before I drew my card. What do we do now?"

Assuming no cheating, I'm thinking the infraction would be TE: Insuffecient Shuffling. Remedy is we shuffle the deck.

But do we do anything with the drawn card? Would it be a different infraction?

The definition of Tournament Error–Insufficient Shuffling states the following…

A player unintentionally fails to sufficiently shuffle his or her deck or portion of his or her deck before presenting it to his or her opponent or fails to present it to his or her opponent for further randomization. A deck is not shuffled if the judge believes a player could know the position or distribution of one or more cards in his or her deck.

…so this seems pretty clearly a case of the player having committed the infraction for failing to present.

However, aside from the Additional Remedy noted, there's nothing about reversing the card draw or otherwise any kind of back-up to the point of error. And while it may seem to be a good idea to try a back-up of some kind in this situation, I'm uncomfortable given there's a random card draw present (presuming that the player shuffled thoroughly). Without specific authorization from the MIPG on that, I'm not inclined to attempt such a remedy and otherwise deviate.

It may be worth submitting feedback on the infraction to see if that is something to consider… But I feel on more firmer ground to follow the MIPG here.

One question: AP shuffles?? The main scenario talk about

Originally posted by Kyle Gorbski:

I totally forgot to pass the deck to my opponent to cut before I drew my card.

soo AP can shuffle enought to randomice but only forgot pass to cut the deck…

If AP don´t shuffle, Brian tell all.

The infraction here has been covered, but I want to talk a little more about the fix. Specifically, why don't you attempt to undo the draw.

What is supposed to happen after AP finishes shuffling? There is supposed to be a cut, which is missed. Then, AP is supposed to draw a random card from the top of the library.

If AP is not cheating, did they “draw a random card from the top of the library?” And, if so, why should our fix attempt to address this action?

I think undoing the draw only makes sense if the card was drawn into an empty hand. Otherwise, we could be putting back and then shuffling away a card that's been in AP's hand for the whole game, maybe even that they were playing towards– Fumigate, perhaps. In that kind of case, the attempted “fix” leaves the game state far worse than it was when AP drew a card they'd seen on top.

Of course, AP could have seen a game-winning card on top and not shuffled on purpose, but that's not a Tournament Error at all.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

If AP is not cheating, did they “draw a random card from the top of the library?”

That depends on how you define random but the end result is the same: there was a random card on top of their library, then AP saw it, then AP drew it. This is not functionally different from drawing a random card. AP did not manipulate the top card. A card that used to be random ended up in their hand without them manipulating anything in between.

All this assuming the “not cheating” is true, of course. If AP saw the top card and did not shuffle because that's a card they wanted to draw, then it's obviously cheating.

Originally posted by Kyle Gorbski:

“Judge! I cast Whir of Invention to get my Prophetic Prism and I totally forgot to pass the deck to my opponent to cut before I drew my card. What do we do now?”

Assuming no cheating, I'm thinking the infraction would be TE: Insuffecient Shuffling. Remedy is we shuffle the deck.

I agree with TE - IS for the reasons Brian stated above. Failing to present to cut is literally in the definition of the infraction, so it's pretty safe to say that's what it is :)

Originally posted by Kyle Gorbski:

But do we do anything with the drawn card? Would it be a different infraction?

Before I get into what to do with the drawn card, I'd like to touch on the question of whether it would be a different infraction. If you look at the bottom of MIPG 1.1, you'll see “Infractions with the same root cause, or multiple instances of the same infraction that are discovered at the same time, are treated as a single infraction.” This tells us that even if the drawn card is a different infraction, because it has the same root cause (failing to sufficiently shuffle the deck) we treat the whole event as a single infraction.
Now the drawn card is an interesting case. The impression I get from the OP is that the player shuffled his/her library and then drew, rather than simply putting the library down without shuffling at all, then drawing. This doesn't line up with some of the comments in this thread though, so I think that information is important. Either way, we shouldn't do anything with the drawn card because policy doesn't support it.
Ultimately, there are two scenarios here, and we need to ask some questions to find out which is the case:

• The card on top of the library was random, unknown to either party
  
• The card on top of the library was not random and its identity was known to the insufficient shuffler
  

If the card on top is random, then (statistically speaking) it truly doesn't matter if the opponent cuts before that card is drawn. You have the same probability of drawing any given card in the deck regardless of if your opponent has cut or not, provided you aren't cheating in some way.
If the card on top is not random, then this is a more serious problem: by knowing what they were about to draw, the player clearly did not make any attempt to randomize the whole deck. We should probe for cheating here.

EDIT: Lists are hard.

Edited Kenny Dolson (Feb. 7, 2017 03:16:42 AM)

I would be a little skittish about a potential fix if the only card in hand was the card drawn. With the above, we aren't taking action against the drawn card if there are any other cards in hand, and I feel like the philosophy of changing the ‘fix’ based off of game state is problematic. As outlined above, if we believe the top card of the deck was random and there is no suspicion of cheating, deviating and trying to backup feels.. odd.