Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

The more I consider this the less happy I am with a GRV-LEC because that would imply that if Player N had put the card into their hand instead we'd be issuing a game loss here. I don't think where the card goes matters

But isn't this the commonly drawn line in the sand? If I go to draw for turn, and I pick up two cards, but they do not touch my hand (of cards) and I call a judge, do you rule DEC?

That being said, I think I am more on-board with DEC here. N has put a card they should have never seen into their hand, and they did so by assuming Cryptic Command resolved. I do not believe there is a GRV preceding the drawn card.

Edited Matt Braddock (March 4, 2015 09:40:24 AM)

First, I want to throw in a shameless plug for Knowledge Pool; when you encounter a scenario like this, consider submitting it for KP to use: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/6774/

Next - we can get lost in (mostly) irrelevant details, like whether N acted too quickly, or A was too slow to say “wait”, and whether priority was passed, etc., etc. It's important to remember how players really play the game; N probably wasn't expecting a response (esp. if A only has Green available), and he did at least stop short of drawing that card.

In my view, this is either Cheating or Looking at Extra Cards. If I believe that it was an honest mistake, I'll apply the fix for L@EC to the card set aside, record that infraction, and carry on.

The investigation, however, will be quite thorough - as others have noted, this is suspicious. I'll look at the card that was set aside, his hand, and the game state; if the card that he didn't draw is clearly bad in this situation, or if he had knowledge of the top 2 (or more) cards, it's going to be harder to convince me of his innocence. (Then again, I've started some Investigations just looking to collect background info for the “obvious” DQ, and not assessing any infraction at the end … you just never know.)

Keep in mind, at no time did he draw an *extra* card - he just drew the wrong one, and (hopefully) it was an honest mistake; if the library truly is random, then which card is drawn should be irrelevant.

d:^D

There is a concept I like regarding this: the difference between L@EC and DEC is mechanical and not of intent.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Even though the first card didn't reach A's hand, that's the card that A *should* draw. So it's the drawing of the *second* card that creates the DEC penalty.

I'm not persuaded by this logic, to be honest. We wouldn't assess a “drawing extra cards” penalty for drawing the “wrong” card if, say, they didn't notice knocking the top card of a library to the ground due to a dexterity error?

I feel there is a big difference between looking at the card you
aren't drawing and not looking at it. But I'm pretty happy with that
difference being absorbed by a L@EC infraction and a significant flag
to the judge to investigate for cheats.