It's the last swiss round and time in round is almost finished.

A match is 1-1 and we're on pre-game procedure for G3. Player X knows that if he draws, he gets into the top 8 but he will be out, if he loses.
So, he admittedly decides to mulligan all the way to 0 with the only purpose of wasting time.

Is there an infraction here?

Edited Jorge Monteiro (May 4, 2015 03:54:45 AM)

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

So, he admittedly decides to mulligan all the way to 0 with the only purpose of wasting time.

From the IPG:

4.7 Stalling - examples
D. A player intentionally mulligans slowly before the third game in an attempt to make it harder for his opponent to win in time.

I would call mulling to 0 stalling if done with the intention of wasting time. This is in my opinion UC -Stalling, and a DQ.

I think this is not Stalling if he resolved his mulligans in timely fashion. Mulling to 0 might be stalling if he is shuffling to much and wastes time with that, but the fact that he mulls to 0 should be okay. It's the same as it would be if he takes a lot of game actions, but never does so slowly, which never is Stalling or even Slow Play.

I agree with Markus.

Would it be another infraction for you, if it would be Round 1 of a GPT
0-1 for the guy, that mulligans to 0

Edited Ralph Glätsch (May 4, 2015 04:29:55 AM)

Taking mulligans down to 1 is perfectly fine and can be a good strategic decision. But please explain me why you trhow away your 1 card hand and replace it with 0… for any other reason than wasting time to stall. Mulligans to 1 in a timely fashion: fine! Down to 0? Let's have a talk…

But if you do unnecessary game actions or in this case mulligans, with the intention of wasting time, isn't that stalling? If you can get the player to say “I intended to waste time”, how isn't this stalling, even if he's doing a legal action?

A smart player wouldn't reveal his intentions though.

This matter was discussed one year ago specifically by the L3+ community and our conclusion was that legal game actions, if done without any other violation (such as Slow Play,) do not result in penalties. So, taking a mulligan to 0 is perfectly legal. Why the player does so is not at issue. If the taking of the mulligan is done in a timely fashion, no violation has occurred.

Though these are a bit out of context, here are some quotes:

From Shawn Doherty:
“I have a problem with a system that says that certain actions taken at a reasonable pace are perfectly legal in certain cases and worthy of a DQ in other cases. DQs should be for doing illegal things for advantage, not doing legal things for advantage.”

From Scott Marshall:
“That's the crux of why we finally removed the IPG Cheating example of 3-pile shuffling your opponent's deck because you think he did a mana-weave. I think all the L4s agreed that we didn't like the “vigilante” aspect of that action, but we really didn't like a DQ for an otherwise legal action. And that principle has been consistent for Cheating - we now have those “three tenets” - you have to break the rules, know that you're breaking them, and seek advantage.

It seems fair to apply that same principle here, doesn't it? None of us like that he does something to abuse the clock, but it's an otherwise legal action. If you're doing something that's normally legal, you fail the first two of those three tenets.”

From Toby Elliot:
“This is correct. It's a dangerous road to go down where we decide a player is playing suboptimally.

That being said, the actual stalling infraction requires taking an excessive amount of time on game actions to eat up clock. Mulliganning from 3 to 2 should be a very quick activity - a couple riffles and an overhand should do it. If the player insists on doing a bunch of pile shuffles, that's an actual sign of stalling.”

Edited James Do Hung Lee (May 4, 2015 04:46:19 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

And that principle has been consistent for Cheating - we now have those “three tenets” - you have to break the rules, know that you're breaking them, and seek advantage.

It seems fair to apply that same principle here, doesn't it? None of us like that he does something to abuse the clock, but it's an otherwise legal action. If you're doing something that's normally legal, you fail the first two of those three tenets.

That is not the philosophy I believed in from my previous knowledge. In my understanding, illegal actions taken deliberately were taken care of in the UC - Cheating penalty. Stalling infraction was for actions that, while legal, were being abused to run out the clock.

If you look at Stalling examples, they usually are legal actions (counting GY, thinking about a play for a bit for bluffing you have something other than lands in your hand, etc.). So, the “three tenets” shouldn't apply here.

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

Scott Marshall
And that principle has been consistent for Cheating - we now have those “three tenets” - you have to break the rules, know that you're breaking them, and seek advantage.

It seems fair to apply that same principle here, doesn't it? None of us like that he does something to abuse the clock, but it's an otherwise legal action. If you're doing something that's normally legal, you fail the first two of those three tenets.

If you look at Stalling examples, they usually are legal actions (counting GY, thinking about a play for a bit for bluffing you have something other than lands in your hand, etc.). So, the “three tenets” shouldn't apply here.

My philosophy was always that Stalling is intentional Slow Play, and therefore an action that is not legal because the time you use. The way Stalling is formulated and the examples given in the IPG seem to support that, also if it is a backward definition:

IPG 4.7 Stalling
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. If the slow play is not intentional, please refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.

So if the infraction is not intentional it is a Slow Play infraction. Would you ever call mulling to 0 slow play if it is not to run down the clock? Besides there is nothing mentioned about taking a lot of unnecassary actions and all the examples show situation where something was done to slow.

A Mulligan to 0 is almost always Stalling in that situation.

I'll ask the player: Why did you mulligan from 1 to 0? He will very likely either lie to me or admit he wanted to waste time. Either way he will end up DQed.

Philip, that is incorrect. What James Lee posted (and quoted) is ‘O’fficial.

If a player mulligans to zero in a timely manner, do not DQ them for Stalling.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (May 4, 2015 07:15:06 AM)

When “playing for a draw” you are taking legal actions to USE time, the difference in USING and WASTING time is dependent on which side you are on.

If time is a resource (I.E. you need more time) then you will play faster, and possibly play lose which may cost you. If the clock is a resource (I.E. you want time to elapse) you will play slower, and more deliberate and be less likely to make mistakes.

If you have a chance to win that may get you blown out, but if you don't take this window you have ZERO chance to win, we have no right to tell them they MUST take this action. And as such they may take any number of actions as long as they are legal and not redundant.

Unless we remove draws and make both players take losses (which I am not against but that is another topic completely) then playing for the draw is part of the environment our players exist in.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Philip, that is incorrect. What James Lee posted (and quoted) is ‘O’fficial.

If a player mulligans to zero in a timely manner, do not DQ them for Stalling.

d:^D

So, in case we're sure (or he admits it) a player plays in a timely manner, but only to waste time, we should not penalize him?

If I control 1 Sensei's Divining Top and at the end of my opponents turn, use the “look top3, but them back in any order” ten times. Contionusly taking only a short moment to reassign the cards. Are you saying I am allowed to do this??!?! Or Mishra's Factory, activating it just for the sake of activating it.

If you take an action in game and its only purpose is to eat up time no matter how small it its you've committed stalling.

The action you take is irrelevant.