How strict are we with this, and when would we like players to call a judge for this?
The classic scenario where a player tries to draw a card but a second card is pulled up with the first. But corrected quickly enough that the top or one of the sides of the second card never stopped touching the library. I've noticed that most players will call a judge on themselves if they've actually seen the second card, but not if there was a potential for them to have seen it. This leaves a potentially shady area where the player could've seen the card and then deciding whether to call a judge or not.

The IPG tells us it's Looking at Extra Cards “when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck”

When does it start becoming significant?
From what point on would we like the player to call a judge him/herself?
What do you do when you witness this and the players continue playing?
What if the opponent or a spectator calls the judge for this but the player demonstrates it was nowhere close to being seen?
Would you ever consider a shuffle fix just to be sure without any infraction?

From the general philosophy section of the IPG:

“If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene.”

This definitely qualifies. As long as the AP is not actively concealing the mistake from the NAP, and as long as AP is not gaining and meaningful strategic advantage, I'm fine with players just ignoring this type of error (though of course they always have an absolute right to call us, too)

When does it start becoming significant?

• I guess that every judge has a different line on this. My personal line is if the card becomes completely separated from the top of the deck.
  

From what point on would we like the player to call a judge him/herself?

• Unless the card falls on the floor or the player accidentally flips up his opponent's card (ie during shuffling opponent's deck) I would not expect this to happen.
  

What do you do when you witness this and the players continue playing?

• I'm okay with the players handling this on their own.
  

What if the opponent or a spectator calls the judge for this but the player demonstrates it was nowhere close to being seen?

• Seems okay to me.
  

Would you ever consider a shuffle fix just to be sure without any infraction?

• No. If you're unsure enough to shuffle the deck, you're issuing a penalty (IMHO).
  

Edited Russell Deutsch (Nov. 8, 2016 09:40:47 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

The IPG tells us it's Looking at Extra Cards “when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck”

IPG also says:

A player pulls up an extra card while drawing from his deck.

You don't need to move card away from a deck at all. Significant for me will be each instance, when there is slight possibility that you saw 2nd card.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

What do you do when you witness this and the players continue playing?

I would investigate why player who made mistake did not call a judge.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Would you ever consider a shuffle fix just to be sure without any infraction?

I might, especially that you can use that as a small investigation tool - if a player is really upset that you want to randomise random portion of library he might truly saw that card and it's beneficial for him.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

When does it start becoming significant?

When there is potential for the card to have been seen. I wouldn't issue LEC on potential only, but I would not begrudge a call in a minor situation.

From what point on would we like the player to call a judge him/herself?

I feel like this is not a useful question to be asking. The reason is that the answer is “always”, but in reality, even honest players will only call a judge on themselves when they've actually done something wrong, not when the opponent thinks there may have been potential for something wrong to have happened. Saying to a player “If you think that the opponent may think that you may have done something wrong, call a judge”, that's probably something the player will look at you and say “what are you talking about?” Hence I'm not sure this question is useful.

What do you do when you witness this and the players continue playing?

If the opponent doesn't feel as though there is an issue, I don't feel as though there's an issue. The opponent has a tournament on the line, and if they are prepared to allow potential advantage to their opponent when they don't have to, that's their business and not mine. I might step in in the case that the issue occurs while the opponent is distracted, but even then only in particularly egregious cases.

What if the opponent or a spectator calls the judge for this but the player demonstrates it was nowhere close to being seen?

If they are able to demonstrate this to my satisfaction, then no issue has occurred. No harm, no foul, play on.

Would you ever consider a shuffle fix just to be sure without any infraction?

No. If you are unsure enough to shuffle, you should be unsure enough to issue a penalty. This is why LEC is a Warning, because if you're wrong, the worst that's happened is you issued a Warning and the player knows to be more careful, and if there's a pattern of “accidentally maybe looking at the top card of my deck possibly”, then perhaps that “accidentally” and “maybe” and “possibly” are things worth looking into more closely.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Nov. 9, 2016 12:19:48 PM)