So I had this situation at event today: Andrew cast Colected Company and put two creatures on the battlefield, then, instead of putting left cards on the bottom, he shuffles those with his library. What infraction he committed and how we fix that. I will put my own solution later.

This looks pretty straightforward to me as a Game Rule Violation and
Warning. Unfortunately, there is no way to fix it and I would leave the
deck as it is. I would probe a little bit on if there had been cards on
bottom from some other effect just to make sure there wasn't something more
sinister going on, but it is a reasonable mistake to happen.

And I'm stuck in the past, heh. Disregard.

As weird as it may appear I believe this falls under the new HCE. “This infraction only applies when an unknown card is in a hidden location both before and after the error.” so I believe the correct fix would be allow the opponent to put 4 cards on the bottom of their opponents library.

Originally posted by IPG:

If that zone is the library, they should be shuffled into the random portion

So while yes, it falls under HCE, there doesn't seem to be a fix, as the offending cards are already shuffled in. I guess you could argue that the offending player should first reveal their whole library, and then shuffle it again? That seems a bit extreme though. I would just give a warning and move on, assuming I didn't suspect anything intentional.

"Otherwise, the player reveals the complete set of cards that contains the unrecoverable
information and his or her opponent selects a number of cards equal to the number of excess or
unverified cards. Those cards are returned to their original zone. If that zone is the library, they
should be shuffled into the random portion. A simple backup to the point just after the error may
be used if there have been additional parts of the instruction performed since the error, such as
discarding or returning card to the top of the library. Once this remedy has been applied, the
player does not repeat the instruction or partial instruction (if any) that caused the infraction. A
player may concede or mulligan (if applicable) to avoid the additional remedy."

I wanted to add some emphasis to the quote in HCE that's relevant. If the cards aren't being returned to their original zone (they are still in that zone, just in a different position), do we proceed with shuffling? I think that the words used are there to handle the traditional fixing of things such as what happens when a player draws an extra card (we don't want it to end up on top), but not what happens in some other, weird cases

I really like Brock's fix, but I don't think it's supported by the new policy. I think it seems to be in the same spirit as the new policy though c:

To be honest, if we use the fix Brock suggested we have to give like 5 minutes extra time and more, since the opponent is also allowed to write down cards(he's entitled to have that information, so he can write it down).
Sure, you can tell him to speed up, still selecting for cards to the bottom will take some minutes.

I'd still go with the old fix. None. (but a Warning for GRV)

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

To be honest, if we use the fix Brock suggested we have to give like 5 minutes extra time and more, since the opponent is also allowed to write down cards(he's entitled to have that information, so he can write it down).
Sure, you can tell him to speed up, still selecting for cards to the bottom will take some minutes.

I'd still go with the old fix. None. (but a Warning for GRV)

Except that doing that is explicitly listed as an example for slow play…

B. A player spends time writing down the contents of an opponent’s deck while resolving
Thought Hemorrhage

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

To be honest, if we use the fix Brock suggested we have to give like 5 minutes extra time and more, since the opponent is also allowed to write down cards(he's entitled to have that information, so he can write it down).
Sure, you can tell him to speed up, still selecting for cards to the bottom will take some minutes.

The fact that he's entitled to the information doesn't mean he's entitled to spend 5 minutes writing it down, and it absolutely does not mean you should give him extra time to complete that process. The IPG even give this specific example of slow play:

"A player spends time writing down the contents of an opponent’s deck while resolving
Thought Hemorrhage.“

If you decide to go with this fix, the player is allowed a reasonable amount of time to choose the cards (30 seconds? maybe a bit more?). When he has chosen the cards he cannot spend any more time looking at the contents. If he's able to write down some notes while or after thinking about the choice that's fine, but it's hard to see how this would allow him to write down a whole lot of information about an unsorted deck. Possibly he could note the amounts of 1 or 2 specific cards.

Should we apply this fix? I'm not quite sure. Looking at the definition of Hidden Card Error this seems to fit in quite well. However, the language of the additional remedy does not work at all for the situation:

”Those cards are returned to their original zone. If that zone is the library, they
should be shuffled into the random portion."

This doesn't work well for cards moving to the bottom of the library. Should the opponent get to see the deck, choose 4 cards, and then we shuffle those 4 cards into the deck again? The natural solution would be to put the chosen cards on the bottom of the deck, but that goes against what is written in the IPG. Perhaps a clarification is needed in the IPG on how HCE is fixed for cards moving from the top to the bottom of library. In addition to Collected Company it also applies to cards like Dig Through Time and Anticipate and in my experience the issue comes up regularly. It will likely happen a number of times during the March round of modern Grand Prix, so official clarification would be nice.

Edited Mats Törnros (Jan. 27, 2016 12:50:17 PM)

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

If you decide to go with this fix, the player is allowed a reasonable amount of time to choose the cards (30 seconds? maybe a bit more?). When he has chosen the cards he cannot spend any more time looking at the contents. If he's able to write down some notes while or after thinking about the choice that's fine, but it's hard to see how this would allow him to write down a whole lot of information about an unsorted deck. Possibly he could note the amounts of 1 or 2 specific cards.

So you are able to look through a whole library of a deck that you dont play to choose 4 cards you have to find?
You're really fast then.

There is also a difference between content of the library and writing down some cards.

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

"Otherwise, the player reveals the complete set of cards that contains the unrecoverable
information and his or her opponent selects a number of cards equal to the number of excess or
unverified cards. Those cards are returned to their original zone. If that zone is the library, they
should be shuffled into the random portion. A simple backup to the point just after the error may
be used if there have been additional parts of the instruction performed since the error, such as
discarding or returning card to the top of the library. Once this remedy has been applied, the
player does not repeat the instruction or partial instruction (if any) that caused the infraction. A
player may concede or mulligan (if applicable) to avoid the additional remedy."

Library is a zone.
Bottom of library isn't a zone.
So, letting the opponent choose 4 and put them at the bottom is not what IPG say.

Letting the opponent choose 4 and reshuffle them doesn't accomplish anything.
Our goal is offsetting the error with a roughly equal punishment (you drew a card more? Opponent strips you out of your best card). Letting the opponent view your hand, or library, or anything, is the way, not the goal.

I would rule Warning and it happened, keep playing.

I agree with warning, carry on. There's no reasonable fix that makes sense in a timely fashion.

Would the “pick 4 to bottom” fix as Brock suggested take any longer than fixing someone shuffling their hand away?

Is the “pick 4 to bottom” fix in any way supported by policy?