I am of the opinion that each player will need to shuffle, draw a new 7, and make mulligan choices from there.

Along with the making of a few apologies to both parties for our error. It is simple and an easy fix. Keeps the tournament moving along.

-Jeff

I will start by saying I was one of the people involved in this situation, and seeing this this discussion makes me super happy. (:

What if you're like 95% sure that you remember the cards in the affected players hand based on either memory, or the way you sorted the cards during the deck check?

Originally posted by Jeph Foster:

I will start by saying I was one of the people involved in this situation, and seeing this this discussion makes me super happy. (:

What if you're like 95% sure that you remember the cards in the affected players hand based on either memory, or the way you sorted the cards during the deck check?

As the old saying goes “It ain't what you don't know that gets you - it's what you know for sure that just ain't so”. Even if you think you know what the opening hand is, there's simply too much room for the human mind to construct false memories based on what you thought you remembered. In that respect, even being “certain” wouldn't be enough for me to be comfortable reconstructing it without photographic evidence or something of similar objectivity.

As the chance of messing up the players hands is so high I would only
grab the decks at that point when I knew I was deck checking them
because we were suspicious. Also I'd probably go one step further than
just keeping the hands separate, I'd take photos of them as soon as I
got to the deck check table, just in case.

(I'd also hope that my check mate asked me why 7 cards were at 90° to
the rest of them on top of the deck)

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Trey Cizek
<forum-3859@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Jeph Foster
>
> I will start by saying I was one of the people involved in this situation,
> and seeing this this discussion makes me super happy. (:
>
> What if you're like 95% sure that you remember the cards in the affected
> players hand based on either memory, or the way you sorted the cards during
> the deck check?
>
>
> As the old saying goes “It ain't what you don't know that gets you - it's
> what you know for sure that just ain't so”. Even if you think you know what
> the opening hand is, there's simply too much room for the human mind to
> construct false memories based on what you thought you remembered. In that
> respect, even being “certain” wouldn't be enough for me to be comfortable
> reconstructing it without photographic evidence or something of similar
> objectivity.
>
> ———————————————————&mdash ;——————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/20305/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3859/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3859/
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Maybe I missed something (apologies if I did), but Cris and Joshua seem to be the only two who, re the core issue, argue based on policy, and policy says “preserve hands.” Those who argue for a symmetric fix (like force both players to draw 7) fail to back up their reasoning with written policy (eg, MTR 2.8) or unwritten policy (like, don't shuffle a player's deck unless explicitly asked to).

Further, I don't know how forcing someone who had no part in it to forfeit his or her opening hand can be squared with the overarching philosophy that we should be perceived as “a benefit to the players” (MIPG I).

As far as potential mulligan decisions are concerned, the KP description clearly states “kept their opening seven-card hands;” so according to CR 103.4 no mulligans occurred or will occur.

In respect to Trey's concern that “there is a lot of unspoken information that has already been gained just in the players making their mulligan decisions,” I'd respond that when we fix something, we don't try to evaluate such things. Quote: "procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty" (MIPG 1.3).

Edited Bernd Buldt (April 20, 2013 10:28:42 PM)

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What might be the reaction be if the person whose hand we lost had the absolute nuts and we didn't do something to rectify the situation? Is it unreasonable to assume that some nonzero number of players might turn our mistake into an allegation of impropriety/partiality toward the other side? Would the other player who kept a lousy 7 be yelling at us that his opponent got a free mulligan to 7 (in practice, if not in policy)? If the overarching goal of judges is to be seen as “a benefit to the players”, I really don't think being a slave to written policy in such a situation is really where we want to be.

Put another way: We already irreparably violated written policy when we erred and lost one of the opening hands, so at this point, I think the question is really one of how can we best get to a fair conclusion, rather than how closely can we stick to the letter of written procedure. While procedural fairness is a laudable goal, I do not believe that the best way to move forward after the first error is to continue to hold policy as inviolable - policy is written to be fair only when followed in its entirety. Once we goof, it's not so much a question of how best to follow the letter of the MTR/IPG anymore, as much as what deviation is appropriate to reach a conclusion that both sides can agree to, or at least begrudgingly accept.

Going back to the scenario, if I'm a player in this situation, and when the judge comes back, he tells us that he made a mistake and we'll both have to draw new opening hands, I'm going to realize that the judge is human, that we all make mistakes, and be just fine with the outcome, because it basically is just as though we'd never taken opening hands in the first place. If the judge comes back and tells us that he made a mistake and that I alone would have to redraw an opening hand, I would be a little upset. If the judge also states that because I'd kept my opening seven and therefore would not be allowed to make mulligans (as I think Bernd is implying - I sincerely apologize if I'm misinterpreting your line: "so according to CR 103.4 no mulligans occurred or will occur.“), I'd probably drop from the tournament right then and there and file an official complaint with the DCI.

The moral of this is that in my mind, having only the one player redraw his opening hand is exactly the sort of ”partial fix" that is spoken so strongly against in all the documents. And doing so opens way too many doors for hard feelings.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

By all means, do!

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

I'd kept my opening seven and therefore would not be allowed to make mulligans

Just a quick remark to make sure we're on the same page here. I understand “opening hand” per CR 103.4 to be defined as what you decided to keep after you resolved all mulligans.

Originally posted by Bernd Buldt:

Trey Cizek
I'd kept my opening seven and therefore would not be allowed to make mulligans

Just a quick remark to make sure we're on the same page here. I understand “opening hand” per CR 103.4 to be defined as what you decided to keep after you resolved all mulligans.

In the interest of clearing up confusion:

Suppose both players have kept their seven card hands (i.e. chosen not to make a mulligan). The deck check team does their thing, and A's hand is lost beyond any possibility of recovery. As such, she has to get a hand somehow, and the logical thing to do (at minimum, disregarding any fairness or policy concerns about what else to do) is to have her draw a new hand of seven. My question is: At this point, do you consider these seven cards to be A's “opening hand”, and therefore, by 103.4 not subject to further mulligans, or do you believe that A has the right to make mulligan decisions based on these seven cards?

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

At this point, do you consider these seven cards to be A's “opening hand”

No. What a player decides to keep after he or she has resolved x mulligans, with x≥0, becomes their opening hand (= OH). As such, you can't have an OH w/o having made mulligan decisions. So, if we give a player a fresh set of seven cards, it becomes an OH only after he or she has decided to resolve all mulligans, if any. That is how I understand things (should) work.

This isn't an answer to the issue, but why do we allow deck checks after
Opening Hands are decided? The possibility of such an error wouldn't even
exist if that were the case. I've never seen a judge swoop in after hands
are decided and it doesn't seem to be a problem for most judges to
innocently wait around and get the right timing in between decks being
presented and full hands being drawn.

I would argue (until someone points out to me what I'm missing) that the
MTR should be updated to take out this possibility.


2013/4/21 Bernd Buldt <forum-3859-38e0@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

but why do we allow deck checks after Opening Hands are decided?

Basically b/c of what George said earlier, ie, for logistics reasons.

Edited Bernd Buldt (April 21, 2013 03:57:02 PM)

Well then we just don't do a deck check. I don't have non-anecdotal data, but I'm sure we wouldn't be hurting tournament integrity by missing a deck check once in a while.

Don't forget Dominik that sometimes those deck checks are targeted, and thus need to be done then and there.

Dominik, we changed to allow deck checks after opening hands because players had learned to avoid deck checks by rushing ahead.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Dominik, we changed to allow deck checks after opening hands because players had learned to avoid deck checks by rushing ahead.

And I'm pretty sure many of us have our fair share of stories about how we caught a cheater after the opening hands had already been drawn.