A player forgets to reveal a morph face down when the match ends.
Is it HCE or GPE?

I go to using the scenario described by Dan Collins, is more clear.

AP casts a morph face down during the game. That card is never revealed for any reason. When the game ends, he scoops up all of his cards and the face down morph is now hopelessly shuffled into the library.

Edited Jose Miño (Feb. 22, 2016 11:01:26 AM)

It's only a GRV if it isn't HCE. So let's decide if it's HCE.

I'm going to use the following definition of the scenario - just so it's clear we're talking about the same thing. AP casts a morph face down during the game. That card is never revealed for any reason. When the game ends, he scoops up all of his cards and the face down morph is now hopelessly shuffled into the library.

Originally posted by IPG 2.3:

A player commits a Game Play Error that cannot be corrected by only publicly available information and does so without his or her opponent’s permission.

I'm on board so far. We cannot fix this using publicly available information, the card is shuffled into the library. Nothing says the opponent gave him permission to not reveal that card. So far, so good, we move on to the next paragraph.

Originally posted by IPG 2.3:

This infraction only applies when an unknown card is in a hidden location both before and after the error.

There are a few irrelevant clauses after this quote, this is the relevant part. We must have an 1) unknown card, which 2) was in a hidden location, and 3) is now in a different hidden location. I think we can agree that 1) and 3) are met.

So, is “face down on the battlefield” a “hidden location”? The phrase “uniquely identifiable position” isn't in the IPG any longer, so we can't turn to that for answers. The card face itself is hidden. If you'll allow a slight diversion…

“The top card of the library” is a similar position, where the card isn't known to anyone, but everyone can agree on where that card is. For example, imagine Enlightened Tutor without revealing. The card was in a hidden location both before and after the error, but yet this isn't HCE. Why not? Because in that situation, the error can be corrected using publicly available information (just reveal the top card). So, the “top card of the library” is hidden, but yet publicly available.

To validate this position, we have this excerpt from http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2016/01/25/the-hidden-corners-of-hce/:

Toby Elliott
Face-down on the battlefield philosophically qualifies as a hidden location.

“Philosophically qualifies”. Good enough for me.

I say the same is true here. The card was hidden and is still hidden. I rule HCE. There is no fix we can apply. Perhaps we can tell AP to show us what his face down morph was now.

I disagree that there is no fix to be applied; we can reveal the set of information which includes that which was hidden in order to mitigate advantage generated by the error. So in this case, the infracting player's library would be shown to their opponent in whole.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I disagree that there is no fix to be applied; we can reveal the set of information which includes that which was hidden in order to mitigate advantage generated by the error. So in this case, the infracting player's library would be shown to their opponent in whole.

This. At least for the fact that, if we do nothing, some players could use this to cheat-play any non-morph-cards near the end of the game/round.

So in this case, the infracting player's library would be shown to their opponent in whole.

How does that «fix» prove the card in play was a morph?

The opponent has, generally, all the time to ask to reveal the morph cards in the time between when they realise the game is over and the time the cards are reshuffled.

Putting and incorrect morph on purpose is a really easy catchable error. So if someone want to cheat powerfully 2/2 creature he will probably be DQed fast.

The older penalties (gameloss) was change to a warning for those reason. Why would you had a strange penalty (in that case, revealing the library taste more as a penalty than a fix) now?

I don't believe there's an infraction here anymore. This was specifically called out in the prior versions of the IPG because (I think) it was such an unusual situation to infract.

Imagine you come to a table where two decks have been shuffled and presented. Alan, who called you over is claiming that Nathan attacked at the end of the previous game with a creature Nathan said had trample (it didn't) and despite being blocked it then did enough damage to kill Alan. Both players agree this is what happened and you're convinced of no cheating by either party.

This is pretty much the same thing; an error apparently happened in a game that doesn't exist anymore - there is simply no way to confirm what really happened and definitely no way to reassemble the gamestate - Nathan may have cast Sunbringer's Touch earlier in the turn but no one remembers, in the OP example the morph might have died and been flipped before the end of the game, but had so little impact it was irrelevant and neither player remembers, or it may have been casually flipped then shuffled away but not seen by Alan.

The HCE fix has a clause: “A player may concede or mulligan (if applicable) to avoid the additional remedy.” that seems to imply this is applicable only while a game is going on, not in between games.

This feels like such a low reward high risk strategy that I'm not convinced it has a huge risk of cheating attached to it.

Marc, I don't believe these are the same at all; for one, your example is indicative of an error that occurred in what is clearly a previous game. In the case of a morph not being revealed, we are ostensibly addressing the error as it occurs at the end of the game. The fact that either player has begun shuffling away permanents doesn't magically make that go away.

Secondly, “risk of cheating” isn't part of our evaluation process for determining whether infractions are committed and what remedies are applied; that has more to do with the design of the IPG. And while revealing the library sounds overly harsh for something that seems low risk, it doesn't change how we should handle the infraction; that's a sign that the policy may need adjustment, not that we have free reign to deviate from it.

Dan, I think your analysis is very good, but I have some considerations
I agree that a face down cards is a hidden location.

However, I think there are more things to be analyzed for say “yes, is HCE and not GRV.
In the situation NAP (player who not control the morph) once the game is over has the opportunity to ask AP that shows the morph, ie the morph face down is a hidden location for HCE, but the card was in a public zone where NAP can to ask AP reveal the morph and prevent the error.

It is similar to cast a tutor and put the card on the top of deck without reveal.
The card is on a hidden zone (library), but It is a ”public location" where the opponent has to chance to avoid the error.

With regard to the above I think of another situation
Player A has a Morph face down on the battlefield. Player B cast a Force Away target to Morph. Player A takes the Morph and puts it in his hand without reveal this.

Is HCE or GRV?
This can to be GRV. Player B has the chance to avoid the error of player A and ask to the player A reveal this.
The difference with this example or tutor example with the original theme in this post (case morph at end of the match) is that in these there are a ability in resolve and the two players are responsible that the resolution is correct.

Originally posted by Jose Miño:

Is HCE or GRV?
This can to be GRV. Player B has the chance to avoid the error of player A and ask to the player A reveal this.

Agreed. To me, failure to reveal a morph at end of game is clearly a “publicly correctible error” that the IPG explicitly defines as not being HCE. I have trouble imagining a “scoop” so quick and so thorough that it's not possible for one player to stop the other before the morph is irreparably shuffled in.

This is not a new question. When the GRV upgrade was being applied to failing to reveal morphs at the end of the game (an age I like to call the Dark Times), the question came up whether this was really an “error the opponent cannot verify the legality of” - and to a lesser degree, whether the other player was permitted to wait until the face down cards had been shuffled in to call a judge, in the hopes of getting a greater penalty.

The answer was that it was upgradable (the opponent didn't necessarily have a chance to stop it while the cards were still in a uniquely identifiable position), and that it wasn't Cheating to wait for the error to be committed (you didn't know your opponent would forget to reveal until he or she actually failed to reveal). Of course, we have much more sane policy now, but the principle still applies - we can't expect players to predict their opponent's errors, nor can we expect them to physically stop their opponents in the act of shuffling.

By the time even an astute judge can be expected to notice the error and react, the information needed to correct the error may not be publicly available. If you are lucky and the cards are still publicly identifiable, then great, no infraction has been committed and everyone can carry on with their lives. Otherwise, clearly the error isn't publicly correctable now, and if there was a window after the error was detectable but while the cards were still publicly identifiable, it was so short as to be meaningless.

Originally posted by Jose Miño:

Is HCE or GRV?
This can to be GRV. Player B has the chance to avoid the error of player A and ask to the player A reveal this.

Maybe player B did, but remember that player B is not expected to predict A's error Minority Report-style, only call attention to it promptly once it is committed.

Originally posted by Jose Miño:

The difference with this example or tutor example with the original theme in this post (case morph at end of the match) is that in these there are a ability in resolve and the two players are responsible that the resolution is correct.

Both players are responsible to call attention to such errors regardless of whether an ability is resolving or a game rule is being followed. I don't see the difference.

Eli Meyer
I have trouble imagining a “scoop” so quick and so thorough that it's not possible for one player to stop the other before the morph is irreparably shuffled in.

Having survived GP Ottawa (and issuing many Game Losses for this very thing that weekend), I can assure you it is possible.

Edited Dan Collins (March 2, 2016 11:43:36 PM)