If a player is supposed to draw a card, but then the cards stick together or he accidentally pulls up two cards and notices this before they are put into his hand, what infraction is this and what is the fix?
Initially, I assumed this was Looking at Extra Cards and we shuffle the second card away, but this doesn't really make sense when considering that we say that cards are indistinguishable from each other when they touch in a hidden set (e.g. when a player has his hand laying face down on the table and puts a card on the top of that pile). So I would assume that you shuffle both cards into the deck and then draw a card.
But you could also treat this as Hidden Card Error and the opponent chooses the card to be shuffled in. But this wouldn't make a lot of sense considering the definition of “set”.
What is the correct fix here?

This is Looking at Extra Cards. If everyone can agree what the top card was then you can leave this on top and shuffle the other one in. If nobody can agree and the top card wasn't already know from scrying etc then you can shuffle both it. Remember to always check that there is no intent to get a free shuffle here.

A caveat to add to shuffling for L@EC; you shuffle the previously unknown portion of the library.

If both the top cards were known (say a Brainstorm had resolved recently), don't shuffle them away!

Edited Winter (Aug. 3, 2017 10:21:02 AM)

The IPG specifies that cases like this are L@EC, and not HCE. And while a card in the hand is considered indistinguishable once it touches the rest of the hand, the top card of the library is considered a uniquely identifiable card.

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

the top card of the library is considered a uniquely identifiable card.

Just to clarify; the top card is in a uniquely identifiable position, it isn't a uniquely identifiable card (which is why we do shuffle it away if it is seen when it shouldn't be).

indeed, you are correct – position, not card

Originally posted by Norman Ralph:

If nobody can agree and the top card wasn't already know from scrying etc then you can shuffle both it.

Out of curiosity, what do you do if one or both cards were known from scrying? Assume no cheating…

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Out of curiosity, what do you do if one or both cards were known from scrying? Assume no cheating…

Well, if only one is known from scrying, that's the one that was supposed to be drawn, right? So the extra is shuffled in.

If both were known from a scry 2… Strictly by the IPG, it's still LEC. Your right to see that second card down ended as soon as the scry action was completed. However, in this case, the fix would basically be “do nothing,” since we only shuffle away unknown cards. Shuffling nothing except the already randomized portion would just be a waste of time.

Edited Andrew Villarrubia (Aug. 6, 2017 04:22:00 PM)

Andrew, I think Florian means if the top card was known by AP but the opponent doesn't agree on which one was the top and which was the second, because some card manipulation was involved.

The possibilites for LEC being leave it on top or shuffle it, we'd have to decide if it's more damaging for AP to have 50% of knowing the card on top or 50% of shuffling away a card he decided to scry on top.

Edited Àre Maturana (Aug. 6, 2017 03:51:25 PM)

If some card manipulation was involved, this is HCE and not LEC, so we don't care about scryed cards
If it was just a dexterity error and we know for sure which card is which, it is LEC and we shuffle the unknown cards. If he know both cards, we don't shuffle at all

Originally posted by Martin Hergeth:

But this wouldn't make a lot of sense considering the definition of “set”.

Touching on this – a “set” of cards just means “a number of cards you can tell apart from some other cards.” If a player picks up the top two cards of their library, and those two cards haven't touched any other cards in the game, those two cards are a set.
One of the examples in HCE is a player picking up 7 cards for Collected Company instead of 6 – by picking up 3 cards with their left hand, then 4 with their right. In that case, the set of 4 cards in their right hand is its own “set” and remains so until they touch and become indistinguishable from other cards. If the player puts their right and left hands together and now they just have one big pile of 7 cards, the “set” containing an extra card is the big pile of 7. If they keep their left hand with 3 cards and their right hand with 4 cards separate, the “set” containing an extra card is just the 4 cards in the right hand.

If you can tell the cards apart from other cards, that's the set.

Originally posted by Norman Ralph:

This is Looking at Extra Cards. If everyone can agree what the top card was then you can leave this on top and shuffle the other one in. If nobody can agree and the top card wasn't already know from scrying etc then you can shuffle both it. Remember to always check that there is no intent to get a free shuffle here.

This fix is not supported by the IPG.

what do you mean?

If you are supposed to draw a card and you actually look at 2 of them, if players agree on the identification of the card that was on top (and supposed to be drawn and seen), there is no reason to shuffle this card away.

The infraction is looking at extra cards, so you apply them as soon a player has seen cards of his Library that he was not supposed to see. What is the part that is bothering you?

Hi Theo! Thanks for asking for a follow up, my first post was a little too short to be explanative.


From the IPG, the additional remedy for LEC is as follows:

Originally posted by IPG on LEC:

Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck, then put any known cards back in their correct locations.

I understand “previously unknown cards” to mean all cards that were unknown before the infraction occurred.

It does not mention using the players' combined agreement of the top card to determine a “known card.” Players' memories are fuzzy, and it is possible to not notice what order the cards are in and then “just go along with it.”

The propensity for this kind of mistake is made more clear in the fix for HCE - even if the hand is face-down and the extra drawn card is placed on top of it and both players agree which card is the extra drawn one, we do not use the players' mutual agreement to determine which card should be shuffled back in to the library. There is simply too much room for abuse.

Another reason for avoiding the “determining a known card based on mutual agreement” is that it creates problems with customer service as players encounter multiple types penalties across the span of a tournament. "But Judge! You listened to me when my opponent and I agreed which card I was about to draw! Why don't you listen to us when we agree which card I drew?"

Overall, the propensity for abuse, customer confusion about penalties, and customer dissatisfaction can be avoided by following the fix for LEC as written.

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

It does not mention using the players' combined agreement of the top card to determine a “known card.”

You're right that the wording doesn't make this clear - but if we (Judges) are certain that both players know which card was on top, then it was in a known position - the top of the library - and doesn't have to be randomized.

Philosophically, it should remain on top if possible. In an unlikely scenario, the player could pick up two to ensure that the unwanted top card (known by some form of cheat, perhaps) gets shuffled away. However, if someone is trying that cheat, they'll make sure they “don't know for sure which was on top”…

When I handle a situation like this - one that involves both players agreeing - I don't usually initiate the topic of which card was on top. If the players - esp. the opponent - bring it up, I'll satisfy my need for certainty by asking both of them how they're sure of it. If it seems likely that the two cards were just picked up and immediately set down on the table (i.e., as soon as it's noticed there's two, not one), then I might ask “are we sure that this one was on top all along?” - but generally, I let the players guide me to that topic.

You might be surprised how many helpful opponents will volunteer “I'm sure they're still in the same order” - I think it's far more than those who sullenly insist “it could be either one, I don't know what he did”.

d:^D