Originally posted by Eric Paré:

From section 2.3: GPE-DEC in the IPG: “If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.”

I believe Natalie confirmed Anton could illegally put the Aurelia back into his hand when she answered “Yep.” to his question. Therefore it can't be a DEC.

Meh, almost missed that. Thanks to all. And it makes the situation even more interesting and complicated, as I really like Vincent's “either - or” argument here.

First of all: wow, I am apparently awful at names, haha. My apologies again for getting those mixed up so much on this scenario.

As for the ambiguity on “Bounce it?” - I didn't intend to imply there was some technical ambiguity in what “Bouncing” was (though, there is, I suppose). My intention was to say the following: each player clearly has some knowledge of what Azorius Charm does. Perhaps the question was simply asking about the mode of the spell, or was interpreted that way? I feel that at least the responder (avoiding names this time, since I'll probably get it wrong again ;) ) interpreted the question as “You are choosing to bounce Aurelia, correct?” rather than “Does Azorius Charm put Aurelia back in my hand?”, in which case no response WRT oracle text was ever made. A brief investigation into that may be in order, but based on the way events proceeded here, I think it's safe to assume this was the line of reasoning.

I agree that the infraction is GPE-DEC, with a penalty of Warning and a fix of putting Aurelia on top of its owner's library. I don't feel like the IPG's exception for confirmed number of draws applies here since, after all, it wasn't a draw at all. Pretty confident the intent of that exception is to handle something along the lines of Sphinx's Revelation for 5, but each player thinks it was cast for 6, and resolve it in that way, and this scenario doesn't really feel like it fits that intent.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

From section 2.3: GPE-DEC in the IPG: “If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

I'd like to cite CR:

120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player’s draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.

It seems to me that we should differ between “draw a card” and “put a card from some other zone to hand”. So if I cast Ancestral Recall, saying “draw four” and my opponent confirms this - that is the case Eric quoted. But in case of taking Aurelia back to hand instead of putting her on top of the library this is not “draw some cards” effect, so it can not be confirmed by the opponent and fails to fall into quoted case.

Edited Timofey Urbanovich (Oct. 19, 2013 02:20:14 PM)

Originally posted by Timofey Urbanovich:

It seems to me that we should differ between “draw a card” and “put a card from some other zone to hand”.

The definition of Drawing Extra Cards doesn't actually care about drawing cards, though. The definition (in part), is:

IPG 2.3
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand

We don't need to worry about what it means to “draw a card” in this context, because the definition of the infraction doesn't care about how the card ended up in the player's hand.

e: Actually, I think I misunderstood what you were getting at here. I think your argument is interesting, but I don't think this is how it should be applied. The philosophy behind that exception doesn't change just because the act isn't “drawing” a card, per se (though it is hard to contrive a scenario where it applies, isn't “drawing”, and the identity of the card isn't known to all players).

Edited Vincent Roscioli (Oct. 19, 2013 04:04:58 PM)

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

The philosophy behind that exception doesn't change just because the act isn't “drawing” a card, per se (though it is hard to contrive a scenario where it applies, isn't “drawing”, and the identity of the card isn't known to all players).

CR gives us strait definition of drawing and we can not ignore it: confirmation from opponent used only in case of draw.

For example if I drew a card from my opponents library (imagine that we we have same sleeves and decklists) after his confirmation of draw - it still would be a DEC infraction because “draw” definition from CR clearly states that I should use my own library.

So as a result I can see no way how we can issue GPE - GRV for any of the players. And I agree with Alex that it is between TE - CPV and GPE - DEC plus GPE - FtMGS.

Edited Timofey Urbanovich (Oct. 19, 2013 10:12:53 PM)

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Matt Farney
If a CPV or GPE prevents a penalty from being issued for Drawing Extra Cards, do we still need to perform the DEC remedy?

No, you can't use a remedy for something that isn't being issued as a penalty. In the end you are attempting a partial fix (even though there is no remedy for a DEC at competitive REL because it is a straight up game loss.).

There is a potential remedy listed for DEC:

IPG 2.3
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

-mf

Edited Matt Farney (Oct. 21, 2013 06:34:10 AM)

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

Austin Brown

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

If a CPV or GPE prevents a penalty from being issued for Drawing Extra Cards, do we still need to perform the DEC remedy?

No, you can't use a remedy for something that isn't being issued as a penalty. In the end you are attempting a partial fix (even though there is no remedy for a DEC at competitive REL because it is a straight up game loss.).

There is a potential remedy listed for DEC:

IPG 2.3
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

-mf

I see your point, but don't at the same time.
He was basically asking “If there was a DEC, but the preceding infraction was something else, can we still use the DEC remedy to fix that error even though the penalty being issued is not a DEC?”

I like GPE - GRV for Aurelia's controller (A) and TE - CPV for Azorius Charm's controller (Z, because I'm bad at names). Here's my reasoning:

From IPG, under GPE - GRV:

This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to follow a game
procedure correctly.

This sounds like exactly what A did. There was a game procedure, i.e. “put Aurelia on top of your deck”. He did not follow that procedure correctly, instead putting Aurelia into his hand. It is not GPV - DEC because of this:

(From IPG, GPE - DEC)

If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards

He asked “bounce Aurelia?” which, to me, is unambiguous enough. While I've definitely heard people use “bounce” for a Griptide-type effect before, in probably > 95% of cases “bounce” means “to hand”. While 95% might not be a good enough certainty for some of you, keep in mind that language is very rarely followed precisely to the letter (both in MTG and IRL), and the only way communication works is if there is some understood standard based on an understanding of what people “probably” mean. Based on the fact that there is a 95% chance that A meant “to hand”, I'll give A the benefit of the doubt here.

For Z, I would give a TE - CPV (also I think this used to be called PCV at some point and I'm getting wicked confused writing this). Z violated communication policy by misrepresenting the Oracle Text of the Azorius Charm.

From MTR, section 4.1, “Derived Information”:

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information includes:

<snip>

Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.

<snip>

Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.

Z clearly violated communication policy here, and thus gets a TE - CPV.

Regarding any additional remedy, 5 cards drawn is way too much to do a full rewind, so we can't do that. However, I would do the partial rewind recommended under GPE - GRV:

If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players,
and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.

The reason for this is because Z was clearly making their plays assuming that Aurelia was not in A's hand, and that would still be correct after applying the remedy, so this remedy would have the smallest likely impact on the game while still being consistent with IPG.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Oct. 21, 2013 11:00:50 AM)

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Matt Farney

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Matt Farney
If a CPV or GPE prevents a penalty from being issued for Drawing Extra Cards, do we still need to perform the DEC remedy?

No, you can't use a remedy for something that isn't being issued as a penalty. In the end you are attempting a partial fix (even though there is no remedy for a DEC at competitive REL because it is a straight up game loss.).

There is a potential remedy listed for DEC:

IPG 2.3
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

-mf

I see your point, but don't at the same time.
He was basically asking “If there was a DEC, but the preceding infraction was something else, can we still use the DEC remedy to fix that error even though the penalty being issued is not a DEC?”

Can we and should we?

In this case, a penalty may (or may not) be issued for DEC, but we certainly had the problem of DEC.
IMO, that makes that potential remedy relevant.

-mf

Ok, so GRV or CPV ?

How we make the difference ? An error of communication causes a game rules violation in many cases.

Thanks !

Edited Jean-François DURMONT (Oct. 22, 2013 12:11:03 PM)

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

Can we and should we?

In this case, a penalty may (or may not) be issued for DEC, but we certainly had the problem of DEC.
IMO, that makes that potential remedy relevant.

-mf

IPG 1.3
Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied. If the first penalty would cause the second one to be inapplicable for the round (such as a Game Loss issued along with a Match Loss), the more severe penalty is issued first, followed by the less severe penalty in the next round

The above quote supports your claim, and changes my opinion at the same time. Originally I was going for a TE-CPV and that was it. But looking back, even though the root cause of the GE-DEC was the TE-CPV, we could and should apply both. Now we have a different perspective entirely.

IPG 2.3
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

It's obvious that the penalty can be downgraded if the HJ gets involved, and thus it is a GE-DEC with a warning as a penalty. So we now can apply both a TE-CPV(for Natalie) and a GE-DEC(for Anton) with a warning on each. but then does it still follow IPG 1.3 guidelines? Neither one of them is more severe at this point, they both have the same penalty. Well, I believe we can apply both of them.

So now we have a TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix(Except to remind her to correctly represent her cards.), and a GE-DEC for Anton with a warning(Also telling him he has the right to ask for oracle text at any time). We can then use the suggested partial fix for downgrading the GE-DEC and put the Aurelia on top of his library.

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

It's obvious that the penalty can be downgraded if the HJ gets involved, and thus it is a GE-DEC with a warning as a penalty. So we now can apply both a TE-CPV(for Natalie) and a GE-DEC(for Anton) with a warning on each. but then does it still follow IPG 1.3 guidelines? Neither one of them is more severe at this point, they both have the same penalty. Well, I believe we can apply both of them.

So now we have a TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix(Except to remind her to correctly represent her cards.), and a GE-DEC for Anton with a warning(Also telling him he has the right to ask for oracle text at any time). We can then use the suggested partial fix for downgrading the GE-DEC and put the Aurelia on top of his library.

Isn't there a way to deal with DEC if a CPV has happened before hand?

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Austin Brown
It's obvious that the penalty can be downgraded if the HJ gets involved, and thus it is a GE-DEC with a warning as a penalty. So we now can apply both a TE-CPV(for Natalie) and a GE-DEC(for Anton) with a warning on each. but then does it still follow IPG 1.3 guidelines? Neither one of them is more severe at this point, they both have the same penalty. Well, I believe we can apply both of them.

So now we have a TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix(Except to remind her to correctly represent her cards.), and a GE-DEC for Anton with a warning(Also telling him he has the right to ask for oracle text at any time). We can then use the suggested partial fix for downgrading the GE-DEC and put the Aurelia on top of his library.

Isn't there a way to deal with DEC if a CPV has happened before hand?

IPG 2.3
If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.

Ok, so let me explain myself. I wrote all of that stuff after being awake for only 5 minutes, so I wasn't thinking quite clearly. So because there was a confirmation in the form of “bounce?” - “yes” then it is not DEC. Basically I fall back onto my original claim of a single TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix. I knew about that exception when writing my original claim, but was too tired to remember it on the previous post. Thanks for pointing it out to me :)

Originally posted by Austin Brown:

Ok, so let me explain myself. I wrote all of that stuff after being awake for only 5 minutes, so I wasn't thinking quite clearly. So because there was a confirmation in the form of “bounce?” - “yes” then it is not DEC. Basically I fall back onto my original claim of a single TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix. I knew about that exception when writing my original claim, but was too tired to remember it on the previous post. Thanks for pointing it out to me :)

I was thinking more of:

IPG 2.3
no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Austin Brown
Ok, so let me explain myself. I wrote all of that stuff after being awake for only 5 minutes, so I wasn't thinking quite clearly. So because there was a confirmation in the form of “bounce?” - “yes” then it is not DEC. Basically I fall back onto my original claim of a single TE-CPV for Natalie with a warning and no fix. I knew about that exception when writing my original claim, but was too tired to remember it on the previous post. Thanks for pointing it out to me :)

I was thinking more of:

IPG 2.3
no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed

That too.