If a player casts Fact or Fiction and reveals the top 6, would this be L@EC or GRV?

It's probably L@EC, since the cards were directly revealed in this case. The “extra” card would be shuffled into the random part of the library as part of the fix.

Alternately, if the “extra” card could not have been identified (because AP looked at the 6 cards, may have changed the order, and then revealed them) then it is HCE.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Alternately, if the “extra” card could not have been identified (because AP looked at the 6 cards, may have changed the order, and then revealed them) then it is HCE.

A caveat here: make sure it's really, really clear which the last card is.

The IPG is guided (though not governed) by a philosophy of avoiding situations where it's highly disadvantageous for players to be honest. If we rely on NAP to confirm that the order of a stack has not changed, we create a strong incentive for the NAP to “forget” or be “not sure” about which card is card #6. If AP had flipped the cards one at a time, counting, and counts out card 6 separate from all the others, sure. But if he pulls up a stack of 6 cards and flips them all at once, I'd rule HCE, even if I was almost certain the order had not changed.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

A caveat here: make sure it's really, really clear which the last card is.

The IPG is guided (though not governed) by a philosophy of avoiding situations where it's highly disadvantageous for players to be honest. If we rely on NAP to confirm that the order of a stack has not changed, we create a strong incentive for the NAP to “forget” or be “not sure” about which card is card #6. If AP had flipped the cards one at a time, counting, and counts out card 6 separate from all the others, sure. But if he pulls up a stack of 6 cards and flips them all at once, I'd rule HCE, even if I was almost certain the order had not changed.

Why? It seems like you're advocating applying HCE when the error very clearly can be corrected using publicly available information?

(Maybe someone can point us towards the previous threads on this topic, but I can't find them right now.)

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Why? It seems like you're advocating applying HCE when the error very clearly can be corrected using publicly available information?

In your last post, you agreed that it should be HCE if the extra card could not be identified.
If there is a stack of six cards face up on the table, we're not deciding how to interpret policy when we arrive at the table–we're investigating whether one of those six cards can be identified as the “extra.” This isn't a decision about policy, but rather a “finding of fact” (to use legal terminology).

How are we going to confirm this fact? By asking the opponent if she can confirm which of those cards was the sixth. What happens if she can't? She gets to perform the Perish the Thought fix. Asking her if she's “certain” the order hasn't changed is unfair, because it provides a huge advantage for anyone who tells a completely unprovable lie (unless you would investigate and potentially a DQ a player who answered “I'm not sure.”) It also rewards players for *not* paying attention, since the ones who genuinely aren't sure get a “better” outcome of the ruling that the ones who were watching closely

For that reason, I'm basically never going to ask NAP “were you watching the cards, did that card move?” I might ask her “did he look at them before he revealed them” or “did he count them out one at a time.” But if he there was any realistic opportunity for the order of cards to have changed without NAP's awareness, I'm going to assume that's what happened–acting otherwise would, IMHO, undermine the integrity of the tournament.

Is there any reason not to simply return a random card from the set? I have a hard time mentally justifying HCE when the cards are revealed to both players; this seems to exclude that infraction based on its very definition (the cards are no longer hidden at the point of error).

Assuming the cards end up out of order before they're revealed, why should revealing 6 for Fact or Fiction be treated differently than looking at 8 for Dig through Time?

Also, bear in mind that AP may know some number of cards on top of the library due to scry effects, and (assuming order can't be confirmed) NAP can't tell us which cards are known and which were random.

Edited Eli Meyer (March 18, 2016 12:09:27 PM)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Is there any reason not to simply return a random card from the set? I have a hard time mentally justifying HCE when the cards are revealed to both players; this seems to exclude that infraction based on its very definition (the cards are no longer hidden at the point of error).

For the same reason in the old days we wouldn't do this for the eighth card with Dig Through Time: it opens up an avenue for abuse. As you flip and reveal you notice that the first 4 are horrid, you could intentionally flip 2 at that point with the hope to raise your odds of getting a “good” card.

I'll agree with Dan on this one. Barring something unusual, it seems like an LEC to me. Quoted directly from the new IPG about HCE:

“This infraction only applies when a card whose identity is known to only one player is in a hidden set of cards both before and after the error”

Dan may be technically correct, but shouldn't.

Why? Because its way too easy to cheat.

@Sandro, I disagree. A player is revealing in plain sight an extra card. It doesn't sound easy to cheat to me in that circumstance.

One could go through the train of thought that this player knows the IPG really well, purposefully picked up 6 cards from the top of their library, flicked and reversed the order before laying them down after seeing the 6th card was very good, the opponent was not paying attention and didn't catch it, and now there is potential for advantage.

Given how many commas are in the above sentence, this feels like a stretch to me.

ah, geez, I forgot to pop in here and add my Stamp of Approval ™ to what Dan Collins said…

d:^D

Okey okey, again learned something ;)