(I don't see this discussion in the HCE threads so far, though if I've missed it, my apologies - please point me to it!)

So, here's scenario A:

I have 8 cards in hand, and pass the turn (forgetting to discard a card). During your turn, in combat, you realize I have too many cards, and call a judge.

Scenario A is a very straightforward GRV, and we apply the partial fix: I discard a card immediately. Simple.

Scenario B:

I have 8 cards in hand, and pass the turn (forgetting to discard a card). You take your full turn, and pass it back to me. I draw a card for my turn, going up to 9 cards in hand. At this point, you notice I have too many cards, and call a judge.

Scenario B is the same as scenario A, except that an additional card was legally added to the hand before the error was corrected. It might look like this is the same GRV as before, with the same partial fix (and before HCE existed, it would be). But this situation seems to fall within the philosophy of HCE: I shouldn't be able to discard the new card I drew, but the opponent (and judge) have no way to achieve that with publicly-available information…this looks like exactly the sort of thing that HCE should cover.

The other reason why I think we can't just say “it's the same GRV as it was before” is because, as we know, we go through the GPE infractions top-down - it can't be GRV if it's covered by a preceding, more specific infraction (as Dan Collins so succinctly put it, “it's only GRV if it isn't HCE”).

This seems strange to me, because the point of error itself is the same, in both cases. This leaves us with the conclusion that…the infraction is different, depending on unrelated actions that happened after the infraction? In other words, even though the root cause is identical, the infraction varies.

One way to cut that knot is to just call it a GRV, like we would have before, but I don't see what - philosophically - leads us to that point, other than “well, that's the way it was handled before.” It also contradicts our top-down understanding of identifying GPE infractions, as mentioned above.

Am I missing something that resolves confusion more cleanly? Is it problematic at all that this could become an HCE by virtue of what's happened since the point of error?

> Scenario B:
>
> I have 8 cards in hand, and pass the turn (forgetting to discard a card). You take your full turn, and pass it back to me. I draw a card for my turn, going up to 9 cards in hand. At this point, you notice I have too many cards, and call a judge.
>
> Scenario B is the same as scenario A, except that an additional card was legally added to the hand before the error was corrected. It might look like this is the same GRV as before, with the same partial fix (and before HCE existed, it would be). But this situation seems to fall within the philosophy of HCE: I shouldn't be able to discard the new card I drew, but the opponent (and judge) have no way to achieve that with publicly-available information…this looks like exactly the sort of thing that HCE should cover.
>
>
This isn't HCE. The error (failing to discard) was an error that both players could see. At the time the error was committed, it was correctable with publicly available information. The fact that a later, correctly occurring, event compounds the error doesn't factor into this.
HCE contains the paragraph “Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation. In these situations, the root cause should be penalized and that remedy applied.”

In this case, the root cause is not discarding for turn, and we use the appropriate infraction. Since “not discarding” isn't covered by any other infractions, it falls into GRV. It does not suddenly become HCE when the player draws the 9th card.

-Bryan

That makes a lot more sense, and I hadn't properly understood that paragraph without this context. Thank you very much for pointing it out and elaborating!