What is it that is making you uncomfortable?

I don't see any way this odd scenario should result in DEC (short of Alfred picking up the entire pile and saying “OK, this is now my hand”… and that's not happening in real life).

For that matter, this probably isn't an infraction at all - although Looking at Extra Cards is a likely outcome, soon after dropping those cards. (It's not a certainty!)

How I would probably resolve this:
* ask both players “how many cards were in hand” - hopefully we the same answer from both; if not, we're still OK; this just helps us with the rest, it isn't critical
* ask Alfred (away from the table) to tell me which cards were in his hand
* compare his memory to the cards on the bottom of the pile
* restore his hand based on which of the bottom cards match his memory

Could he lie and hit that 1-in-X chance of getting it right? Sure… and the San Andreas fault could “invalidate” your next event. Let's not let either of those unlikely possibilities influence policy, m'kay?

(almost) Worst case: Alfred can only remember 3 or 4 of the 5 cards that were in his hand, or he thinks there were 5 but the opponent only recalls 4. If Alfred insists it was 5 and can accurately name the 5 cards on the bottom of the pile, we can easily believe that he's correct.

Even worse case: Alfred managed to mix / shuffle some or all of those cards from his hand into the bottom of the cards that were dropped onto his hand. In that case, he's still likely to be able to name most of the cards that will now be among the bottom 8-10 of that pile; your investigation and decision re: his honesty are more important, but it's still within reason to believe him, and restore the contents of his hand.

And at the end, if there's no indication that either Alfred or his opponent could have seen any cards, there's no infraction - just a friendly “please be more careful”, and a time extension.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Even worse case: Alfred managed to mix / shuffle some or all of those cards from his hand into the bottom of the cards that were dropped onto his hand. In that case, he's still likely to be able to name most of the cards that will now be among the bottom 8-10 of that pile

This was the situation as it was described to me. The in-hand cards were in a messy state, and the cards did the slippery-new-sleeve launch out of his hand such that they fell in a way that interleaved with the messy pile of in-hand cards on the table. There was no discussion whether he could name the 5 cards remaining in-hand, so I don't know whether that was a viable part of the solution.

Agreed that there was no infraction here. Just a real question of how to fix the situation.

Thanks!

Edited Gordon Lugauer (Aug. 12, 2015 03:25:58 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

And at the end, if there's no indication that either Alfred or his opponent could have seen any cards, there's no infraction - just a friendly “please be more careful”, and a time extension.

Does the “cards moved significantly away from the library” clause not apply here?

Nathaniel, that clause is really there to support a judge who says to the players “I don't know if you saw any of the cards or not, but because <insert official language> I'm giving you a Warning for L@EC.”

Also, if you read the entire post, you might notice “although Looking at Extra Cards is a likely outcome”…

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 13, 2015 03:20:21 PM)

I'm aware you cited LEC as a likely outcome to the scenario. I'm not confused by that part. What I'm confused about is that, even by the statement you just made, part of the LEC infraction is “I can't be sure whether either of you saw some of these cards” - so why would we ever just ask the players if they saw the cards and walk away with no infraction when a) the library is clearly a mess and needs dealing with, and b) fixing this situation is going to take up time, which is one of the reinforcing purposes of issuing infractions for player errors?

But is requiring a judges time to fix a situation an infraction?

I didn't say it was. I'm asking why we're getting advice to not issue an infraction for a situation that, at least by how I read the definition (and as it is being reinforced to me in the same line of conversation!), clearly fits one - and if it doesn't, where I've misinterpreted that definition. The “taking up time” issue is tertiary to my point, and only serves to lend weight to the discussion by way of the philosophical reasoning for infractions covering dexterity errors.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Aug. 13, 2015 04:45:12 PM)

Nathaniel, I'll apologize if my post wasn't clear - but I think you're questioning things I didn't say.

L@EC is a likely outcome, given the scenario. If, however, you determine that neither player saw any cards, then there's no infraction. If cards moved a significant distance from the library, that greatly increases the likelihood that one or more was, or might have been, seen.

As I noted in a different thread, that line about cards moving is really support for when we judge that L@EC is appropriate, but the player(s) are adamant that they didn't see any cards. We can reply “the infraction applies if cards moved enough that they could be seen - even if they weren't”. Policy backs up that judgment call.

However, if you're convinced that no one saw anything, then … well, no one saw anything, so no extra cards were looked at.

d:^D

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

But is requiring a judges time to fix a situation an infraction?

There was verbiage in historic IPGs about a caution requiring more than a minute to resolve being upgraded to a warning, but if it was ever applied I would be surprised. It is in any event gone now.