Originally posted by Dan Collins:

What part of policy tells you that this is a fix we can apply?

I'm going to make an strange argument here… Backup does.

The proper resolution of Scry 2 is that the the two cards are each placed on either the top or the bottom of the library. Here scry was resolved where the two cards were not in such a place. Scry 2 was (essentially) resolved as “Scry 2 then shuffle” which is an improper resolution of Scry 2. Therefore we should backup to the point of error which was the improper resolution of Scry 2. We randomize the deck (since it was improperly randomized) then correctly complete Scry 2.

I can easily note that Scry 2 was not properly resolved because the two cards were not where they were intended to be at the end of the sequence. The fact that they were in the proper place in the middle of the sequence doesn't change the fact that by the end of the sequence, they were in the wrong place. By making the argument that Scry 2 wasn't properly completed, we can back up to the beginning of it allowing our AP a Scry 2.

The scry was resolved correctly. He looked at two cards and put one on top
and one on bottom. You can't make up some imaginary combined action in
order to justify whatever rewind you want to perform.

“A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).”

That's what the IPG says about a backup, which isn't possible here unless you can identify the cut. We aren't trying to approximate the game state with a backup. We are trying to return the game to the exact state it was in. In fact, what you are talking about isn't a backup at all. It is an attempt at a fix. Be careful.

As another note - if your explanation could begin with the words “I'm going
to make an strange argument here…”, then it's likely that what you're
suggesting is a deviation, and not an intended application of policy.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

“A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed).”

Expected situation from Scry 2:
Player looks at two random cards from the top of their library and places them each on the top or the bottom of the library.

Situation from backup:
Deck is randomized (which is happening regardless of a backup at this point),
Player looks at two random cards from the top of their library and places them each on the top or the bottom of the library.

This returns the game to the same game state before the scry assuming the top cards were not known. I don't find the point that it “should have been those two specific cards” a compelling argument as to why these two game states are different. The gained information (what the two cards would have been) is irrelevant in the line of play.

If you see a card then its not a random card anymore.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

If you can't find that pair of cards, then you have no way to undo the cut, so simply shuffle to restore the deck to a known random state

what part of policy tells you that this is a fix we can apply?

I agree that this situation is GRV, for this infraction the policies says make BU or not. that is turn back the cut or not. But in case of not BU this doesn't tell shuffle the deck.
I think that the solution in case you have no way to undo the cut is to let game state as is and don't shuffle the deck.

I would like to know why is it correct shuffle?

Edited Jose Miño (March 26, 2016 07:32:02 PM)

According to the IPG I believe this is a GRV with no fix and a simple backup is not possible so I wouldn't be getting into discussions about what the scried cards were. Leave the gamestate as is and play on. I'm not happy with this resolution but I believe this is the right solution when following the IPG.

To get to perform a backup (assuming an investigation results in no concerns about truthfulness) we discuss with the AP where cards were then review the deck to see if we can find that combo. In trying to backup we have to find exactly one instance of the cards in question together. If we do - great - we can backup, but if we find multiple instances, or don't find it at all, we have to shuffle because our investigation has given the AP information about their deck. This starts to feel less than simple

What if that player had two(or more) Cryptic Command, and both of them had an Island with them? for weasting time to investiget and slow down the tournament, is not our goal to do with some player's big mistake UNLESS you have 3 or more judges on the floor.
For have a fair ruling or take control of event as a judge, for Comp REL, the best way is left the stage as it is, but with a worning to actually teach the players, hey!, don;t do this again, ‘couse you’re at a Tournament.


–John B

Edited john bai (April 10, 2016 05:05:45 AM)

Originally posted by john bai:

What if that player had two(or more) Cryptic Command, and both of them had an Island with them?

I'm not sure there's that significant a difference in such a situation. Provided the player has no knowledge about the rest of the library, and we only have to ask the player about the pair of cards that he or she observed, then the library is still essentially random when reverting the game to prior to the improper cut. The cards the player told us about will be back in their proper positions with no real information game gain.

Should this make you uncomfortable, then investigating here shows two things: That you care about the player's problem and concerns, and that you took the time to respond to the player's request for help. Which is one of the big reasons we're all judges… We're there to provide customer service to the players in the event.

Whether we can or can't back-up the game or apply a partial fix is a moot point. And while the length of time to investigate a situation is important to keep in mind, we need to be mindful and reasonably balance things when investigating… Not putting it on the player as though they created a significant inconvenience to us and everyone else.

Mistakes happen. We're there to help players when mistakes happen, or explain why we can't. (Because this kind of “Oops” is unlikely to be fixed through education.)

Edited Brian Schenck (April 10, 2016 06:51:19 AM)

Originally posted by john bai:

for weasting time to investiget and slow down the tournament, is not our goal to do with some player's big mistake UNLESS you have 3 or more judges on the floor.

John - and everyone reading - I must object to this logic.

While I never want to waste time and slow down an event - especially Grand Prix and Pro Tour events, where I do most of my investigations - it is always our goal to be as fair as possible, even if that sometimes requires an uncomfortable delay. Also, the number of judges on the floor is irrelevant - we must protect the integrity of the event, and if that means an extended investigation while others wait, then we are ensuring that those others won't also have to worry about Cheating, once we resume.

d:^D

I play a lot of competitive Mtg in addition to judging, and while I understand the policy involved, I am uncomfortable with this outcome. The non-active player has zero incentive not do this as often as possible. In fact, we are encouraging him to pay less attention and cut all of the time.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

I play a lot of competitive Mtg in addition to judging, and while I understand the policy involved, I am uncomfortable with this outcome. The non-active player has zero incentive not do this as often as possible. In fact, we are encouraging him to pay less attention and cut all of the time.

There is incentive not to do this as often as possible - the risk of a DQ.

In general, it's important to remember that we can't fix everything to perfection. We can only do the best we can within the IPG/JAR.