Hello everyone! Welcome to a new week of the Knowledge Pool, under a new version of the IPG, which can be found linked at the top right of this page, along with Toby's musings around the changes:

Blog post for the scenario

Andrew is playing in a Modern GPT this coming weekend. He sacrifices his Arid Mesa and asks, “Fetch?” Newton responds by activating his own Misty Rainforest, finding an Island. After that resolves, Andrew picks up his library and starts searching. He pulls out a Sacred Foundry, then puts it back and gets a Stomping Ground instead. Then he shuffles and presents his deck, when he looks around and says, “Where did my hand go?” After counting, the players figure out that Andrew shuffled the 4 cards from his hand into his library accidentally.

What do you do?

Edited Josh Stansfield (Jan. 21, 2016 02:26:10 PM)

Andrew's hand contains 4 cards fewer than it should, and his deck contains 4 more cards than it should. Nothing instructed Andrew to put his hand into his library, so this is a game play error. The error cannot be fixed using publicly available information, so this is a Game Play Error - Hidden Card Error. Andrew will receive a warning. Newton did not have a chance to catch this error before the game progressed, and has committed no infraction.

The fix is interesting, and I'm not sure I'm applying it correctly here. The IPG instructs the fix to be:

Otherwise, the player reveals the complete set of cards that contains the unrecoverable
information and his or her opponent selects a number of cards equal to the number of excess or
unverified cards. Those cards are returned to their original zone.

Applying this, the fix would be for Andrew to reveal his library. Newton picks 4 cards from this library, and those cards become Andrew's hand. Then shuffle Andrew's library. If Andrew does not wish to reveal his library, he may choose to concede the game instead.

Apply a time extension as necessary, remind the players to play carefully and keep their zones distinct, and continue the game.

Additional commentary:
Under the old IPG, this would be a GPE - GRV with a warning, and no fix would be applied. Andrew would have continued the game with a 0-card hand, and likely have lost. Under the new IPG, if I've applied the fix correctly, Andrew will have a 4-card hand, though it will likely be the weakest possible 4-land hand from his deck, and a lot of information will have been revealed to his opponent - the opponent will know both the contents of Andrew's hand, and the composition of his deck.

Arguably, the new fix is less game-breaking for Andrew than the old non-fix, though only slightly moreso. Andrew also has the option of conceding the game, if he wishes to preserve that information.

After reading this sequence of events - my first thought was for poor Andrew. What a terrible mistake!

Then I remember our new Hidden Card Error option - and went to read it. And read it again. Then I looked high and low for some other option - surely Andrew doesn't have to reveal his whole library only to have his opponent refill his grip with a mana flood or a bunch of useless one drops. Right? Right?

I don't see another option though. Depending on what game of the match this is, I see the potential for Andrew just to concede the game - especially if this HCE fix is the only one available. It's better than nothing, but as a Judge right now I'm not as excited by the new rules as I was before on my first read through. Andrew gets cards back - but at what cost? (Yes, a mistake was made, but I would like to see a different solution here).

HCE to Andrew. Bad feels for the way the new policy works.

Charles.


(Sorry I went more into commentary mode on this. For some reason though, this fix feels very unsatisfactory).

Edited Charles Featherer (Jan. 21, 2016 06:42:45 PM)

On 22 January 2016 at 08:43, Charles Featherer <
forum-24111-98d3@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

>
> I don't see another option though. Depending on what game of the match
> this is, I see the potential for Andrew just to concede the game -
> especially if this HCE fix is the only one available. It's better than
> nothing, but as a Judge right now I'm not as excited by the new rules as I
> was before on my first read through. Andrew gets cards back - but at what
> cost? (Yes, a mistake was made, but I would like to see a different
> solution here).



Given that the previous fix for this error was ‘too bad, play on’, this fix
is an improvement. If you can come up with an even better idea that
doesn't lead to cheating, tell someone involved in writing the IPG.

This error doesn't happen that often. In the years I've been judging, a
hand has vanished into a library once that I'm aware of.

As others have alluded to we have an example of our new Hidden Card Error. Cards from a hidden zone have wound up in an incorrect and different hidden zone. Namely the cards in his hand have wound up in his library incorrectly.

The new HCE additional remedy states that we should reveal the hidden zone to the opponent (Newton) and allow the opponent to select X cards where X is the excess cards in the incorrect zone. We then move those cards from the zone they are currently in (Library) to the zone they are supposed to be in (Hand). In this case that means Newton selects 4 cards of his choice from Andrew's library and places them in Andrew's hand. Andrew may concede at this point to preserve information (which I would choose to remind him of in this circumstance).

Regardless of whether Andrew chooses to concede or follow through with the remedy I would issue a warning to Andrew for HCE and instruct him to be more careful moving forward. I would issue a time extension for the time it took to correct the problem.

Devin-

I read your reply yesterday and I have been thinking about it ever since.

First off, I want to state for the record that I'd deliver the ruling and handle the situation overall with the utmost professionalism, regardless of my monologue here. Even the fix, as it is written, isn't ALL bad. Andrew does get four cards back. And it was his fault for shuffling his hand into his deck, accident or no.

I do have further thoughts on this topic, but I'm going to agree this isn't the time or place to talk about it. When I have some free moments, I will explore this with a few other Judges and see if it is something I should pursue or if I'm just tilting at windmills. (In a vacuum, sometimes it's hard to know if something like this is really worth testing further).

Thanks for your feedback,
Charles

Warning for GPE:HCE. Fix: Reveal library to opponent and have them choose 4 cards to become Andrew's new hand.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Devin Smith
<forum-24111-c563@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Given that the previous fix for this error was ‘too bad, play on’, this fix
> is an improvement.


Are you sure? It might be in the early game where a hand of 7 bombs
can get you back in the game if you keep drawing land, but in the late
game 4 lands is the same as an empty hand (particularly when your
opponent knows you have all lands). And you give away the knowledge of
what is in your deck.

–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

Are you sure? It might be in the early game where a hand of 7 bombs
can get you back in the game if you keep drawing land, but in the late
game 4 lands is the same as an empty hand (particularly when your
opponent knows you have all lands). And you give away the knowledge of
what is in your deck.

Well…4 lands are not EXACTLY an empty hand :)
You have 4 less lands in your library, increasing chanches to draw a bomb…not really too much, but it's always better than continue the game with an empty hand, no?

I mean…in the past we would had just issue a warning, a pat-pat on the back and let the game continue.
Now we do pretty the same, but the unlucky player has 4 cards in his hands.

I agree with Devin: “this fix is an improvement” :)

I have to side with everyone who thinks this fix is an improvement over what we had before. We can quibble over the minutiae but in the end, we now have a way of restoring at least some of what the player has lost, where before they were stuck with nothing.

Let's also not forget that this is a fix to correct a completely preventable, avoidable mistake by the player being affected. She, in every sense, literally brought this on herself. If you struggle to explain why this fix is fair, you can always fallback on “perhaps in the future, you should avoid shuffling your hand into your library.” I, of course, advise a little more tact in most cases.

Sent from my iPad

Honestly, a lot of feelsbad fixes can be summarized (admittedly, with a little more tact) as “Well maybe you shouldn't have made that mistake”. It feels wrong, but part of tournament Magic is testing players on their ability to pay attention.

In this context, as we've basically agreed that this is HCE with the fix applied to the library, the IPG clearly says that the player can concede to avoid the remedy–which makes this feel like a Game Loss, but as I said before, it's on the player not to shuffle their hand into their library.

It is an improvement with a 4 cards hand, but is it really one with a 1 card hand ? Let s say i m well ahead in a game, only one card left un hand and l do this error, it s a far more harsh punishment than before.

Originally posted by Jerome Pagola:

l do this error, it s a far more harsh punishment than before

Then don't make that mistake.

d:^D

Yeah sure, just trying to anticipate players' questions, what about if they ask if they can just do like before and not concede to avoid showing their deck ?

Originally posted by Jerome Pagola:

Yeah sure, just trying to anticipate players' questions, what about if they ask if they can just do like before and not concede to avoid showing their deck ?

Inform them that the rules have changed and that the previous fix is no longer an option. They either allow the opponent to give them a hand, or they can choose to concede the game