According to the IPG, when the opponent of a participant who missed a set off chooses to place it onto the stack, “No participant could make decisions for the triggered potential involving objects that may not have been authorized decisions when the flexibility ought to have triggered. For instance, if the flexibility instructs a participant to sacrifice a creature, that participant cannot sacrifice a creature that wasn’t on the battlefield when the flexibility ought to have triggered.”

I’ve been advised that gamers are allowed to make such decisions if it can’t be publicly verified whether or not such objects would have been authorized decisions when the flexibility ought to have triggered. For instance, suppose Player A misses Acquisitions Expert’s triggered potential, then Player B attracts for flip, then the missed set off is acknowledged and Player B decides to place it onto the stack. During decision (assume Player A’s celebration is now 1), Player B could reveal the newly drawn card, if and provided that there was no level after the flexibility ought to have triggered throughout which Player B had no playing cards in hand (in order that whether or not a specific card was within the hand when the flexibility ought to have triggered can’t be deduced). Is this right?

If so, does the sport use the idea of units from the IPG in making this dedication? For instance, suppose Player B for no matter purpose needs Acquisitions Expert’s triggered potential to go on the stack, however doesn’t truly need to discard. Can Player B hold the cardboard drawn for flip in a separate set away from the remainder of the hand, then play out the remainder of the hand, then acknowledge and put onto the stack Acquisitions Expert’s triggered potential whereas solely the drawn card stays in hand, and never reveal/discard that card as a result of it could publicly verified as an ineligible alternative in advantage of getting been stored in a separate set?