I've been thinking about the new Drawing Extra Cards approach Toby talked about on his blog and a problematic situation popped on my mind.

Previously, if you had a card on your hand that you couldn't account for you commited a DEC infraction and, in the new version of the IPG still is, but lets say in the following scenario that you are playing on a competitive tournament and you announce every single draw you are making to your opponent and he/she is acknowledging to them. Then, at some point your opponent notices that you have an extra card on hand and you both don't know exactly how it got there (maybe 2 cards were stick together). Barring down shenanigans, how would you categorize this problem? would still be a DEC infraction?

I might be too concerned right now, and maybe you think is a bit of a corner case right now, but I can see coming up more frequently after people get the new policy on their heads and more and more people start asking their opponents about their draws.

“Additionally, it is Drawing Extra Cards if a player has excess cards in their hand that he or she cannot account for.”

That's a separate paragraph in the IPG. So it's still DEC if nobody can figure out where the card came from. Similarly, having two cards stuck together is going to be DEC if you don't catch it in time, because the acknowledgement from the opponent only counts if you say “Draw 2?” If you just say “Draw?” and then accidentally take 2 cards, it's DEC.

Another situation I've been asked about concerning the new DEC definition is the following:
Nancy has 7 mana open at the end of Abigail's turn and casts Sphinx's Revelation announcing “Sphinx for 5” Abigail acknowledges this and then during Nancy's untap step realizes that the max it could have been cast for is 4 and calls a judge.
Personally, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to investigate for foul play on Nancy's part but without intent this would be a GRV, correct?

I think you sphinxs example is grv. Player confirmed the amount.
On 2013-07-12 12:30 PM, “Jonathan Reasoner” <

Originally posted by Jonathan Reasoner:

I'm going to investigate for foul play on Nancy's part but without intent this would be a GRV, correct?

This has always been a GRV. The first error that occurred was that the player did not pay the appropriate costs for a Sphinx's Revelation with X=5. Since this GPE occurred before drawing the extra cards, this wouldn't be DEC, even had Abigail not acknowledged it.

Thats not accurate Vincent. The GRV while casting the spell does not count as the first error.

DEC Definition: '… at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put the card into his or her hand, no other game play error had been committed"

On 07/12/2013 07:16 PM, Bob Narindra wrote:
> Thats not accurate Vincent. The GRV while casting the spell does not
> count as the first error.

Why wouldn't it? If it is an error, why would we ignore it, just because
later another error has happened?

Because incorrectly paying the cost is part of the same instruction or action. There was no other GRV at the moment BEFORE he or she began the action.

Bob, which action are you referring to? Casting a spell is a separate action from resolving a spell. A Game Play Error occurred when the player paid 7 for a spell that had a total cost of 8 based on the declared value of X. The opponent then allowed that spell to resolve. Technically speaking, the resolution of the spell wasn't even an error. It was the casting for the wrong amount of mana that was the problem, and that certainly preceded the action of drawing 5 cards.

Announcing a spell that includes drawing cards, and not paying the correct mana for that spell, is an example of a GRV that leads us to that “this is not DEC” clause.

Josh, I completely disagree. He began the instruction or action that put the extra card in his hand when he cast the spell. It is at the moment before he began that action that we check for GRV

Sorry Scott, my response came in before I saw yours. There have been heated discussions on the MTG study group where it has been determined otherwise. However, given your response I will gladly change my view

Bob, I believe you are reading too much into the exact wording of that
clause. When it says “at the moment before he or she began the instruction
or action that put the card into his or her hand, no other game play error
had been committed”, You are putting too much focus on the word
“immediately”. There *can* be a bit of a delay between the GPE and the
draw, so long as the two are actually related. The GPE doesn't have to be
part of the same exact motion as the GRV, just part of that same sequence
of events leading to the draw.

Nick Short
L2
Chicago, IL, USA