Player resolves Elvish Rejuvenator, puts a land tapped on the battlefield and four cards on the bottom of the deck, in a random order.
Later on, by genuine mistake, player grabs their deck and sees the last card.

What do you do?

I really want the answer to be “LEC, shuffle again the four cards on bottom, Warning, resume playing” … but I cannot find in IPG the proper endorsement for this.
What do you think?

I think it's textbook penalty and fix for LEC, and would do the exact same thing.

> A player takes an action that may have enabled them to see the faces of cards in a deck that they were not entitled to see.

Cyril, the question isn't about the infraction, it's about the fix. This is clearly LEC, the question is what to do with the card that was seen. The IPG's fix was not designed with a situation like this in mind.

Edit: mistakes and typos fixed. Proofreading is better done before publishing a reply ~~

Fair enough, I should have been more lenghy in my reasoning:
Ok, so first, let's just name the 4 bottomed cards A,B,C, D and decide that the player saw card A.

Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck

So we put (B-C-D) aside, the A card get reshuffled into the deck, then the random deck goes on top of (B-C-D)

>

then put any known cards back in their correct locations.

The IPG doesn't have a formal definition of what is “a known card” AFAIK, but in practice, we use “the physical card, that both players agree, is/are in X position”. If I where to put a thin pink confetti in the sleeve of card A before shuffling it, I could then 100% find that “know card” by looking through the deck. If it was a software, each card could have a unique ID, and be found without troubles.

In that case, there's just a small issue arising from tracking a physical card through the deck.

So I think that marking card A, shuffling it in the deck, then retrieving it, removing the marking, and returning it to the bottom 4 is very much supported by the text of:

Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck, then put any known cards back in their correct locations.

The result of all these actions being: reshuffle the bottom 4.
The only leftover hangup is that “correct locations” doesn't specify the state (ordered or random) of the set, but we can't expect a 30 pages document to cover every possible case.

Cyril

Edited Cyril Germain (Sept. 19, 2019 10:32:31 AM)

I am a bit confused by the reasoning of shuffling card -A- back in the deck and then going through the deck and finding card A and putting it back on the bottom.

how is this different than, putting A-B-C-D aside and shuffling the deck and then mixing A-B-C-D and setting those cards on the table and putting the shuffled deck on A-B-C-D.

I do not see the reasoning behind marking the card if you are just going to return it to where it was.

Originally posted by Cyril Germain:

Edit: mistakes and typos fixed. Proofreading is better done before publishing a reply ~~

Fair enough, I should have been more lenghy in my reasoning:
Ok, so first, let's just name the 4 bottomed cards A,B,C, D and decide that the player saw card A.

Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck

So we put (B-C-D) aside, the A card get reshuffled into the deck, then the random deck goes on top of (B-C-D)

>

then put any known cards back in their correct locations.

The IPG doesn't have a formal definition of what is “a known card” AFAIK, but in practice, we use “the physical card, that both players agree, is/are in X position”. If I where to put a thin pink confetti in the sleeve of card A before shuffling it, I could then 100% find that “know card” by looking through the deck. If it was a software, each card could have a unique ID, and be found without troubles.

In that case, there's just a small issue arising from tracking a physical card through the deck.

So I think that marking card A, shuffling it in the deck, then retrieving it, removing the marking, and returning it to the bottom 4 is very much supported by the text of:

Shuffle any previously unknown cards into the random portion of the deck, then put any known cards back in their correct locations.

The result of all these actions being: reshuffle the bottom 4.
The only leftover hangup is that “correct locations” doesn't specify the state (ordered or random) of the set, but we can't expect a 30 pages document to cover every possible case.

Cyril

That was my entire point ^^
That the “follow the IPG to the letter” gives you the exact same result. Hence why “shuffle bottom 4 again” is a fix 100% supported by the IPG.

Originally posted by Cyril Germain:

That was my entire point ^^
That the “follow the IPG to the letter” gives you the exact same result. Hence why “shuffle bottom 4 again” is a fix 100% supported by the IPG.

Indeed, Tommy post made me think again.
Cyril, if you follow the IPG to the letter, you end up shuffling both portions of deck - not only bottom 4 portion. Or not?