Drew an extra card?

[bulbasnore]

So, judges how do you rule this common error:

- Drew an extra card.

In these situations:

1) Its clear which card it is and the player hasn't seen it.

Pretty clear is Game Play Error minor & that's a caution. Am I missing anything here?

2) Its clear which card it is and the player who drew the extra card HAS seen it.

Hmm. I usually reveal the card to the other player, then place it on top; caution. I would not shuffle the deck. What would you do?

3) Its in the players hand and not clear which card it is (e.g. still thinks Holon Ruins is in play and both players don't catch it til later in the turn after its been in the hand a while when other things have been played/added to the hand, but the deck hasn't been further touched). You can not, in fact, tell if what was drawn has been played or which card it is in the hand.

Now both players need a caution/warning as appropriate for letting it get this far, yah? Failure to maintain game state. But what now? Is it rewindable in any way?

 

[NoPoke]

2) I generally don't reveal cards to the other player. Two wrongs don't make a right. You have to be prepared to escalate the penalties to avoid a player taking advantage.

The tricky aspect is if knowledge of that next card has a significant impact on the game. If yes then I up the penalties.

[If I deliberately push someone over and they get hurt it is probably assault, if they happen to have a weak heart and die as a consequence then its manslaughter. You take your victims as you find them]

3) If it was agreed that an extra card was drawn and that it is no longer certain as to which then I'd take a random card from their hand and place it ontop of the deck. Again I wouldn't reveal that card to the opponent.

 

[meganium45]

A caution for cheating?

Seems pretty lenient.

Drawing an extra card is, usually, trying to give you an advantage over your opponent.

There are so few instances where it is appropriate, that I take a much harder stance on this.

There are a number of circumstances, where I soften my stance, due to the probability of honest mistake...

First turn, first player...it happens from time to time. Players usually d'oh right after they do it...especially players who have not been in the game for a while, or new players.

Second "mistake" - Johnny drew his first card for Metagross's Delta Draw (or something) power, and didn't realize there was a cessation crystal/BF in play, OK, that's one thing.



Random drawing of a card out of the blue...not only is it cheating (or sloppy play), but you really have to work hard to put the genie back in the bottle. If the genie can't go back in...prize penalty or worse.

The LAST thing we want to do is set a soft precedence on this.

"Hey, check it out, the worst you get for drawing an extra card is a WARNING - and that is only if you get caught!" - this would be a BAD, BAD message for less than honest players.

Let's go to the extreme example....I am judging, and stop by your match. Your opponent is not looking and you draw a card. Your opponent says nothing. Heck it is not even your turn, and you knew your opponent did not say pass...what is the appropriate penalty there - DQ from the event and letter to PUI.

So Kim, to answer your question...

I will go from a Warning all the way to a DQ for this infraction based on the circumstances.

Vince

NoPoke - the problem I have with your response, is it appears you would penalize differently if the card was a lightning energy or a transceiver. The identity of the card is not what causes the problem, it is the disruption of the game state. The same penalty should be applied to either card.

 

[PokePop]

I agree that the identity of the card that was drawn should have absolutely no impact on the decision or penalty. As for showing the card, in this case, two wrongs do make a right. The player got some info. The opponent deserves to have that info as well.

Vince: I think 'snore is talking about those "d'oh!" cases rather than the "what the heck do you think you're doing?" cases.

I think if it's easily rewindable, especially if the card hasn't been looked at, then we go with Caution.
If there is a bit of a mess (have to randomly choose a card from the hand to shuffle back in), then we go higher, such as a Warning or even penalty.

 

[meganium45]

I assumed that 'snore gave us limited info to garner the widest range of possibilities.

Heck, let's face it, the people who read these responses know the players, and know who will be judging the big events....

I don't want to give them the impression of a soft ruling or a loophole when there will be none.

Vince

 

[bulbasnore]

(e.g. still thinks Holon Ruins is in play and both players don't catch it til later in the turn after its been in the hand a while when other things have been played/added to the hand, but the deck hasn't been further touched)

I meant that as a screw up not a cheat, sorry to catch anyone out.

#2, #1 are rewindable, sorry for the creative penalty of 'revealing' in #2, I could still be talked out of it.

Maybe if I answer #3 someone will argue it with me.

A random card replacement, in the quoted situation, doesn't rewind the game state, in my view. I'm going to half rewind it, so I don't have to give a game loss.

First, Random card to the top of the deck, face down, no revelation. If we picked the wrong card, well, the player player now has right _number_ of cards, and next turn will get the same card back.
Second, since player hase taken game actions which may have been done with wrongful card, because we can't prove which card was wrongfully in hand, I offer the prize penalty to the opponent.

 

[Ditto]

#2, #1 are rewindable, sorry for the creative penalty of 'revealing' in #2, I could still be talked out of it.

I thought sometime back in the WotC era, the "revealing" for #2 was actually official, I could be wrong though.

I agree with 'Pop, you can't erase the knowledge one player has now by knowing the card, but you can "even it out" by giving each player the SAME knowledge, since that is how the gamestate is supposed to be.

More on #3 when I have the time.

 

[PokePop]

Yeah, showing the extra card to the opponent is a DCI guideline.
It makes sense to me, for fairness.

 

[meganium45]

Kim, I don't like the "half rewind" aspect of this.

The game state cannot be fixed, and therefore it is broken. Is it broken so badly as to warrant a game loss? I don't know. I would go prize penalty, and that is as far as the rules will take me.

My little bird wants me to not let him draw a card on his next turn, balancing the cards issue, but once again, adding a penalty to the guidelines....So, no loss of card draw...I guess...still torn.

Vince

 

[Ditto]

For #3 I think I agree with NoPoke, with a touch of Vince thrown in.

Something needs to be done about there being an extra card in the hand, so taking a random card from the players hand and putting it back on top of the deck would seem to be the only way to fix that. However, I think the random card should be shown to the opponent, since the random card is trying to take the place of the known card, and if we were actually using a known card, it would be shown.

The gamestate is now as close to corrected as it's gonna get, however, since it's not actually corrected, penalties should be assigned to compensate for any advantage the person who drew the extra card might have gotten.

For starters, Warnings to both players for not keeping track of the gamestate. Then, I would assign a prize penalty to the player who drew the extra card (so the opponent of the person who drew the extra card could take a prize if they wish).

This shows the seriousness of the infraction, while still trying to fix the gamestate as closely as possible.


Now the real question is, what if the player who drew the extra card has played his or her entire hand when the situation is caught?

Since the player obviously DID gain an advantage by it (the card didn't just sit idly in their hand, they actually got to use it where they wouldn't have been able to had they not draw the extra card) AND the gamestate can not be corrected even a little bit like we could before (by putting a card back on top of the deck) I would say that this warrants a Game Loss to the player that drew an extra card and a Warning to the opponent for not keeping track of the gamestate.

I say this because the gamestate is broken (no way to correct it at all) and there has definitely been an unfair advantage gained (rather than before, when it's just a possibility).

 

[dld4a]

#1 - correct

#2 - Put card in deck, do not show to opponent, opponent has done nothing positive that would warrant the possibly game changing positive information of, say learning that his/her opponent plays a Briney's/Copy Cat/Steven's/random EX..., shuffle (random is random), warning to offending player, caution to opponent for allowing it to happen (but face it, it can be pretty hard to stop your opponents errors sometimes).

#3 - Auto game loss, the game state is broken and irreversible

JMO

 

[DreamChaser AJ]

1- sounds fair

2- I would have you show your opponent the card as well, and then give the opponent the option to have the card shuffled in, since the knowledge of the next card may give the player an advantage, especially since it is his/her turn and they can play it accordingly. Rarely is there a way for deck disruption to your opponent's deck now with Admin gone.

3-If no further actions have taken place, have the opponent choose a card at random, and give them the option of shuffling or discarding chosen card, prize penalty, warnings.
If a signifcicant amount of game play had gone on, depending on level of competition (Cities, States, Nationals, etc.) a more severe version of previous penalty or game loss and warnings.

keep in mind, I believe that some shady players may take advantage of a game loss situation if they know their opponent messed up and choose not to divulge this information until later, on purpose.

 

[dld4a]

have the opponent choose a card at random,

I really don't get the 'show your opponent a card at random from your hand thing.

keep in mind, I believe that some shady players may take advantage of a game loss situation if they know their opponent messed up and choose not to divulge this information until later, on purpose.

In a situation like #3, IMO, if it is not noticed and called to a judge's attention during the turn in which the offending play happened (maybe, maybe early the next turn, but probably not) then it would obviously be too late for a judge to assess any penalties. I understand what your saying about players trying to abuse game loss situations, but really, what possible reason would someone have to wait to call a judge when they think their opponent has committed a game loss penalty. Even if the offended player was winning, why would they not call a judge. I know I would, because even though I might be winning really big, you never know what can happen sometimes. Plus how is it going to help a player get better if you don't call them on their mistakes, but that's just me.

 

[Ditto]

keep in mind, I believe that some shady players may take advantage of a game loss situation if they know their opponent messed up and choose not to divulge this information until later, on purpose.

That's why there is a Warning given out to the player who didn't draw the card but catches it later, for not keeping track of the gamestate. They might be able to get away with it once or twice, but after that it'll show a pattern to PUI.

 

[bulbasnore]

but really, what possible reason would someone have to wait to call a judge when they think their opponent has committed a game loss penalty

Such a pure mind... I like it!

The evil play would be: don't call a judge on the initial violation, that might only be a warning/rewind. Just wait deeper into the opponent's turn and to give the time for actions that would break the game state, then 'call the judge' FTW.

 

[dld4a]

Such a pure mind... I like it!

The evil play would be: don't call a judge on the initial violation, that might only be a warning/rewind. Just wait deeper into the opponent's turn and to give the time for actions that would break the game state, then 'call the judge' FTW.

I suppose I should figure out how to cheat at this game better, just so I can see it coming at me better.
:~?

 

[PokePop]

But, if they didn't call me until 3 actions later, my first question would be, "why are you calling me on this now?"
I don't think I'd be rewinding something like that if someone left it that long.

 

[Ditto]

But, if they didn't call me until 3 actions later, my first question would be, "why are you calling me on this now?"
I don't think I'd be rewinding something like that if someone left it that long.

This is a situation #3 from the original post. It is supposed to be that each player didn't realize it until some other action reminded them later in the turn, but the new question is, what if the player DID realize it but pretends not to till later.

IMO there's really nothing you can do about it, but since there is a Warning given to the player that didn't draw the extra card, for not keeping better track of the gamestate, PUI will catch on if they do it more than once or so.

 

[NoPoke]

Most of the time knowledge of the next card will not have a big impact on the game's outcome. I guess that is an argument in favour of showing the card to the opponent. Can't say that I'm happy with doing so.

The problem for me comes when knowledge of the next card allows a player to find a winning and improbable strategy to secure the win. The game state *is* dependent upon the next card. Sometimes only a little and sometimes a lot. From this I end up concluding that the game state can be messed up a little or a lot by the next card being exposed. Which leads me to two different penalties.

The order of cards in the deck is, for me at least, part of the game state.

 

[Ditto]

Most of the time knowledge of the next card will not have a big impact on the game's outcome. I guess that is an argument in favour of showing the card to the opponent. Can't say that I'm happy with doing so.

The problem for me comes when knowledge of the next card allows a player to find a winning and improbable strategy to secure the win. The game state *is* dependent upon the next card. Sometimes only a little and sometimes a lot. From this I end up concluding that the game state can be messed up a little or a lot by the next card being exposed. Which leads me to two different penalties.

The order of cards in the deck is, for me at least, part of the game state.

I agree with the second part of your statement. I think the knowledge of the next card, however, is really important. The problem is that neither player is supposed to have that knowledge and now one of the players does. I think that gives the player that does a HUGE advantage. Since you can't make the player forget what the card was, the best way to even out the gamestate is to give both players that knowledge.

The other option is to shuffle the deck, but this messes up the gamestate again (and more so this time) so it's not a good option.

Yeah, sometimes the game will be decided that very moment due to the knowledge of the card, but that can happen even if it's not shown to the opponent (for the person who accidentally drew it), so you still have that problem, but now the player who didn't see it is at an unfair disadvantage.

So I would show the card that was seen to the opponent, and then give the player that drew the extra card a Warning so it gets tracked. If they try and gain this advantage by "accidentally" drawing too many card very often then they will get flagged for cheating.

Really, they're less likely to try and cheat since it might end up giving the opponent the winning information.