This situation came up at a PPTQ on Sunday. I am confident that someone more experienced than I has had to handle this before, but I was struggling to determine how to correctly apply current policy to what had transpired. As the head and only judge present, I made a call and am uncertain if how I handled it was ultimately correct. Below are the details of the situation, along with my analysis.


The Call

Nathan calls you over. Both Nathan and his opponent Anthony agree on all details presented to you. The players both shuffled for the second game of their match after sideboarding and presented their decks to their opponents for shuffling. After this, each player drew their opening 7. Nathan decided to keep and Anthony decided to mulligan. While shuffling, Anthony took one of the cards in his deck out of its sleeve and replaced it with a card from his sideboard. This is when you were called over. Nathan asks you “can he do that?”

Obviously the answer to the posited question is “no.” After investigating, you determine that Anthony believed his actions were perfectly legal, and that a deck configuration for a game was only “locked in” after the game had started, which would be after all mulligans took place. Correcting that misconception is the easy part. More challenging is, what do we do now?


Analysis

At first, this seemed like it must fit under Deck/Decklist Problem. However, looking at the Definition section for Deck/Decklist Problem yields the following

Originally posted by IPG 3.5, Definition:

A player commits one or more of the following errors involving deck contents or registration:
• The deck or decklist contains an illegal number of cards for the format.
• The deck or decklist contains one or more cards that are illegal for the format.
• A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card. Truncated names of storyline characters (legendary permanents and Planeswalkers) are acceptable as long as they are the only representation of that character in the format and are treated as referring to that card, even if other cards begin with the same name.
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

Sideboards are considered to be a part of the deck for the purpose of this infraction. If sideboard cards are missing, make a note of this, but issue no penalty.

This infraction does not cover errors in registration made by another participant prior to a sealed pool swap, which should be corrected at the discretion of the judge.

None of the bulleted points above apply. It should be noted that, if we read further, we see that the last example (Example F) does not actually coincide with any of these bullets, though there is a sentence in the Philosophy section of this infraction that appears to be referring to the same general idea

IPG 3.5, Example F
F. A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.

IPG 3.5, Aforementioned statement in the Philosophy section
If the sideboard is not kept sufficiently separate from the deck during play, it becomes impossible to determine the legality of the deck.

Unless there is some interpretation of the above that gets us there, it does not look like this example actually fits the Definition of Deck/Decklist Problem as written. Additionally, we are still in the pre-game procedure for this game, as defined in MTR 2.3.

MTR 2.3, Pregame Procedures
The following steps must be performed in a timely manner before each game begins:

1. If game actions were taken during a previous game of the match, players may exchange cards in their decks for cards in their sideboards. Players may not sideboard during games that have been restarted.
2. Players shuffle their decks. Steps 1 and 2 may be repeated.
3. Players present their decks to their opponents for additional shuffling. The sideboard (if any) is also presented at this time.
4. After the first or subsequent game of the match, the relevant player must decide whether to play first or second at this point, if he or she hasn't done so already. If that player doesn't choose before looking at the cards in his or her hand, then he or she is considered to have chosen to play first.
5. Each player draws seven cards. Optionally, these cards may be dealt face down on the table.
6. Each player, in turn order, may take mulligans. (Rules on mulligans can be found in the Magic Comprehensive Rules, rule 103.4). If a player takes a mulligan, they repeat the shuffling and presentation process described above.

The game is considered to have begun once all players have completed taking mulligans. Pregame procedures may be performed before time for the match has officially begun.

The last two lines of the MTR makes it pretty clear that this is not completely analagous with Example F to begin with. Nathan was not performing this action during a game, as by definition the game in question has not started.

One could argue that Nathan has violated CR 103.1a / CR 103.4 by deviating from the procedure as outlined therein. If we accept this argument, we have a violation of the Magic Comprehensive Rules, meaning a Game Play Error would be applicable. Additionally, we would have a Game Play Error which cannot be corrected with publicly available information, meaning it would fall under the new Hidden Card Error category for the infraction.

So which is it, and why? What is the penalty and what is the fix, if any? Are there other, relevant areas of policy not included in the analysis above that make the correct course of action clearer?


Additional questions

1. Why is Example F under Deck/Decklist Problem an example of that infraction, rather than Hidden Card Error?
2. If the aforementioned Example F is intended to be dealt with as a Deck/Decklist Problem infraction, which portion of the definition of the infraction supports this? If none, shouldn't there be some statement in the definition that makes it clear this is a Deck/Decklist Problem?
3. Are examples meant to be interpreted as part of the definition of an infraction rather than just a clarification of that definition?

Example F falls under the section of the Philosophy - If the sideboard is not kept sufficiently separate from the deck during play, it becomes impossible to determine the legality of the deck.

I agree it's not very clear what part of the definition covers this, fundamentally it would be that the presented deck no longer matches what was presented because the sideboard cards haven't been kept separate from the deck.

Examples help to provide clarification as to what the Definition and Philosophy covers.

There was a Knowledge Pool scenario not too long ago which covered the situation, you can find it here .

I'm inclined to say that the answer still applies even after the recent IPG updates.

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (Feb. 1, 2016 10:55:28 PM)

It feels tempting to call this a Hidden Card Error, but I think that is incorrect. This is just failure to keep the sideboard distinct from the main deck during the course of a match and is a D/DLP. As presented, it doesn't fall under the requirements for the optional downgrade (player did not call it on themselves) and so would be a game loss at this point.

Its important not to try and make everything an HCE just because it is the newest option (this is a common “trap” when things change, not just in Magic but in a broad range of applications.)

Just to make it clearer I will post the result of the KP scenario mentioned by René here.

Originally posted by Patrick Vorbroker:

Thanks to everyone who participated this week!

To determine the appropriate infraction, we must first determine which rule
or policy has been violated by Albert's actions. In this case, Albert made
a change to his sideboarding choices during the mulligan process. While
some aspects of the pregame procedure are contained within the
Comprehensive Rules, when a player is allowed to sideboard during a
multi-game match is not one of them. So we know that this isn't a Game Play
Error of any sort.

If this is a violation of the Magic Tournament Rules, we are in the
Tournament Error category. Some have explored the possibility that this
error is covered as a Deck/Deck List Problem. However, we neither have an
illegal deck presented at any point, nor a sideboard change occurring
during a game - we are still in pregame procedures! What this leaves us
with is an uncategorized Tournament Error, for which there is no infraction.

Explain to the players that they may not, in fact, change sideboard
decisions after a mulligan. Ask them to please play more carefully and call
a judge before they take an action they are unsure about, rather than after. Then instruct them
to play on.

Originally posted by Bryan Henning:

Its important not to try and make everything an HCE just because it is the newest option (this is a common “trap” when things change, not just in Magic but in a broad range of applications.)

From my perspective, it is not so much that judges are “trying to make everything HCE” simply because it is new, but rather that the definition is so broad that it can be interpreted to encompass a wide array of possible events. This understandably leads judges to think “wait, is this HCE?”

I do not disagree with the basic idea that there is a predisposition toward seeing what fits under the new model, but that only makes sense. We have a definition whose bounds aren't as tested and determined as the older, more unchanging infractions.

One could argue that pulling in a sideboard card after presenting is a violation of CR 103.4, which describes the game rules for performing a mulligan, in conjunction with 103.1a, which states that the sideboard should be set aside. Nowhere in the rule describing mulligans does it state the composition of the library can be modified at this time. I'll admit this seems a stretch, but before there was no GPE that would've covered this scenario to begin with. Now there is one that maybe, possibly could fit, which creates an opening for lines of rationale that were unsupportable before (this was clearly not DEC or ID@SoG before).

Looking at the Knowledge Pool scenario (thanks René and Simon!), it does appear that the supported answer to this situation is generic Tournament Error, no infraction, no penalty. They're not allowed to do it, but we do not have an infraction that is appropriate for their error. However, I would like to point out something in the MTR section quoted above.

At the risk of appearing overly pedantic, step 6 states “If a player takes a mulligan, they repeat the shuffling and presentation process described above.” The shuffling and presentation process “described above” is contained in steps 2 and 3. Step 2 explicitly states that Step 1 may be repeated, which is the step in this process where the MTR states exchanging sideboard cards is permitted. While we know this is not the intended interpretation, it is an understandable interpretation of what is written in the text.

The point I am attempting to make here is, if we are asserting that the MTR contains our definition for why this is not allowed, it may not be clear enough from the text contained therein.

I think Jacob has described the impact of HCE quite accurately.

Thank you, René, for finding and sharing that KP scenario - and yes, the answer still applies.

d:^D

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

From my perspective, it is not so much that judges are “trying to make everything HCE” simply because it is new, but rather that the definition is so broad that it can be interpreted to encompass a wide array of possible events. This understandably leads judges to think “wait, is this HCE?”

I do not disagree with the basic idea that there is a predisposition toward seeing what fits under the new model, but that only makes sense. We have a definition whose bounds aren't as tested and determined as the older, more unchanging infractions.

My point wasn't to call out judges on this and may have come across as overly harsh. I agree that it is natural and in fact beneficial to test the bounds of the new model for HCE. I don't fault anyone on that front.

Instead what I was trying to suggest, perhaps poorly, was that a beneficial way to approach HCE errors is to ask “does anything else in established policy cover this situation?” Because HCE is so broad, it touches a lot of other areas that may already have good solutions/answers in place. Finding the bounds is useful, but rather than go at it from the default that it is HCE, approaching it from the reverse default when it interacts with older president (that is still in the IPG) is beneficial.

Of course, that inconsistency/difficulty is why HJs all seem to be pushing their teams to review all HCE calls before giving the ruling, and that is also beneficial.