I took a judge call in a Regular REL Legacy event that I would like to hear opinions on the best fix if this were at Competitive instead. Here is the situation.

Player A cast Brainstorm, but began resolving it as if it were a Ponder. He looked at the top 3 cards (did not co-mingle them with his hand) and then put them back on top and began shuffling. At this point, Player N pointed out his mistake and they called for a judge. Both players agree this is the situation.

I appreciate everyone's help with this!

Hey William,
Let's start with the beginning: according to our documents, what are the prescribed infraction, penalty, and possible fixes?

- Emilien

Let me try this. This is HCE. Warning. And N chooses 3 cards from the Library of A and those are “the Brainstorm cards” that A has drawn. Then A continues resolving BS with the chosen cards

Edited Max Tiedemann (Dec. 4, 2017 11:23:08 AM)

Originally posted by Max Tiedemann:

Let me try this. This is HCE. Warning. And N chooses 3 cards from the Library of A and those are “the Brainstorm cards” that A has drawn. Then A continues resolving BS with the chosen cards

I will just step in to note that “If the set of cards that contained the problem no longer exists, there is no remedy to be applied”.
Also, AP did not draw 3 cards from Brainstorm, nor did he put 2 cards from his hand on top of the library. In effect, the Brainstorm has not been resolved yet. He just looked at three extra cards from the top of his library.

Three cards were picked up from the top of the library; would you have stepped in here and stopped them? I think it's safe to say those three cards were drawn (if not, we should surely step in here), even if they weren't mixed with the rest of the hand. I don't buy that those three cards haven't yet been drawn.

Brainstorm is happy for you to put two cards back, and we have done this correctly, the issue is that we also put a third card back and began shuffling.

Putting the third card back is not permitted by Brainstorm and we could argue that this is the root of the problem and a simple GRV; the issue I have with this is that, as a Legacy combo player, ‘cycling’ a Brainstorm, when the rest of your hand is all combo pieces (or, like me, you're not the best player and you forget that you can put any two cards from your hand back), is not at all unheard of. Picking up the top 3, re-ordering them, putting them back and then drawing 1 (effectively Ponder without a shuffle option) isn't something I'd stop a player from doing or take issue with, for these reasons.

I think the real bare-bones issue is; a player shuffles a card from their hand into their library when nothing instructed them to.

I would issue GPE - Hidden Card Error, issue a Warning and have NAP choose a card from AP's library to be added to NAP's hand.

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

Three cards were picked up from the top of the library; would you have stepped in here and stopped them?

No, because up until that point, no error was made.

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

I think it's safe to say those three cards were drawn (if not, we should surely step in here), even if they weren't mixed with the rest of the hand. I don't buy that those three cards haven't yet been drawn.

But OP explicitly states that these cards did not touch the cards in hand, which is the boundary we use to decide if a card has been drawn or not.
Again, the set that could conceivably have caused the problem does not exist anymore, thus no fix is to be applied. I would agree it is GRV-HCE, and I would instruct Player A to resolve Brainstorm correctly.

Of course somebody will remark about the potential for aboooose. I would answer that we are there to investigate if the error was intentional or not.

I'm not sure I think this is supposed to be an HCE, though my line of reasoning is, admittedly, slightly odd. HCE tells us not to apply the fix to situations where a publicly correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation. Typically “publicly correctable” is taken to mean the error occurred with cards in a public zone, but to me, just prior to the shuffle this was a publicly correctable error. The player had drawn 3 and put 3 back instead of only 2, which is an easy fix, and the hand size/library size numbers to confirm are all public info. It lead to being uncorrectable when the player then illegally shuffled their deck. So to my mind this should be a GRV, and we should have them draw a card from the already randomized library (player forgot to draw/discard/put cards on top library I think applies here).

I'm seeing a GRV upon putting a third card on top of the library. Before the shuffle, those three cards are in a uniquely identifiable position, so a simple backup (putting one of those cards back into hand) would be easy to perform. However, after shuffling (which by itself is also a GRV), this is no longer possible.

I'd issue a GRV, no backup. I think that seeing HCE for a card moving from the “hand” to the library is not what the infraction was meant for, and doesn't really fix anything.

I'm with Sophie on this one.

Originally posted by David Poon:

I'd issue a GRV, no backup. I think that seeing HCE for a card moving from the “hand” to the library is not what the infraction was meant for, and doesn't really fix anything.

If the first thing observably wrong with was shuffling a card from the hand into the library, this is a perfect fit for HCE. Cards were moved from one hidden zone to another, and no publicly correctable error preceded it.

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

I think it's safe to say those three cards were drawn (if not, we should surely step in here), even if they weren't mixed with the rest of the hand. I don't buy that those three cards haven't yet been drawn.

I absolutely agree. I understand the temptation to say this is just LEC because the three cards have not made contact with the rest of the hand yet, but I don't agree with it. The player is clearly resolving their spell. What do we think is happening if this is not the case? The player has not yet started resolving their spell, but decided to look at the top three cards of their library just because?

Originally posted by Samuele Tecchio:

Again, the set that could conceivably have caused the problem does not exist anymore, thus no fix is to be applied.

Here I disagree – the library is the set that contains too many cards. We should reveal the deck to the opponent to choose one card which will be put in the player's hand, issue a GRV-HCE Warning, and continue the match from there.

The first mistake observable was putting 3 cards back on top of the library rather than 2 which to me negates the whole HCE argument.

Just because the cards put on top of the library are face down does not make them hidden, because the number of cards and where they are is visible.

This makes the infraction a GRV and there isn't a fix, you can't rewind a shuffle.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

The first mistake observable was putting 3 cards back on top of the library rather than 2 which to me negates the whole HCE argument.

I want to push back against this. While you are technically correct, in practice I've seen many people do resolve a brainstorm as if it were worded as ponder is, and until the shuffle happens no infraction has been committed (resolving “put two back” as “put 3 back, then draw one” is a valid OoOS).

This is HCE because, at minimum, a player has shuffled a card into their library that should have been in their hand.

I'm still going to disagree with you, putting three back and drawing 1 is not resolving Brainstorm in OoOS, there is no legal sequence in any order that involves putting 3 cards back on top of the library to draw a card. Brainstorm is put 2 cards back. If players are doing this, then it still doesn't make the first observable mistake - putting 3 cards back on top.

Originally posted by David Poon:

I'd issue a GRV, no backup. I think that seeing HCE for a card moving from the “hand” to the library is not what the infraction was meant for, and doesn't really fix anything.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Bass:

If the first thing observably wrong with was shuffling a card from the hand into the library, this is a perfect fit for HCE. Cards were moved from one hidden zone to another, and no publicly correctable error preceded it.

Regarding this point, and assuming that the “first thing observably wrong… was shuffling” (which I contend is not accurate), I stand by my statement. While having an extra card in the library does indeed fit with the definition of HCE, it is not what the infraction was meant for. Yes, revealing a library to the opponent to remove (a) card(s) is a legitimate fix, but it is not really an expected outcome of HCE.

Mark's answers are correct.

The challenge for this scenario is that the first opportunity for the opponent to know that's something's gone wrong is probably when the shuffling begins; putting back three (instead of two) might not even register, but the shuffle should definitely seem wrong.

I want to emphasize this, because it's a key point that's often missed:

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

Just because the cards put on top of the library are face down does not make them hidden, because the number of cards and where they are is visible.

The same is true if a card, or cards, end up on the bottom of the library incorrectly - their physical location is known, as long as the quantity is known, it's correctable with public information.

Once the library is shuffled, there's no reasonable remedy. Investigate, esp. if the player thinks they should now get to Brainstorm again - that'd be too easy to exploit! - and then correct the ongoing problem, which is that they didn't draw a card. (Brainstorm does more than draw a card, but in the end, there's one card added to the hand.) It's not a neat & clean fix, but I'd have them draw a card from the newly randomized library, and remind them to pay more attention in order to get the full benefit of their spells.

Don't expect written policy to provide an exact match for every permutation of “Oops!” that our players create. When they go off the deep end, you'll have to focus on the actual damage to the game state, to guide you on which infraction most closely matches what they did. Beware the trap of finding the remedy that feels right - that's a phenomenon called “reverse engineering”, and that way lies madness. (Or maybe excessive use of HCE. Which might qualify as “madness”?)

d:^D