This fix is seen as an additional penalty.
I don't believe that removing an extra card repairs the game. By doing so, the player has one fewer card that he should have.

You have to penalize the player who did something wrong somehow.

Yes, that's why we give a W.

I look at this is a penalty between W and GL because W seems too light and GL too harsh. And I don't like this idea.

James - that can't be correct. Why would the fix be different at Regular
and Competitive REL? One ‘fix’ is deliberately punitive.

Alexis has a point, we don't penalise any other kind of infraction by
overfixing. GRV lead to you having an extra card in your hand? We'll
remove two. You accidentally forgot to take 2 damage last turn? Take 3
now. You tried to block a Pyreheart Wolf with only 1 blocker? It's
completely unblockable now.

All of these ‘fixes’ sound ridiculous to my ears, but “You drew 1 too many
cards in your opening hand, I'm taking 2 away” somehow is not?

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

I agree that the “fix” seems abnormally punitive. In the example above we're not only spoiling the results of their first mulligan but essentially making them skip their second mulligan and go straight to mulling to 4. This might as well be handing out a GL.

This is why I thought the 2nd mull going to 5 again made sense. You were only “fixing” the one draw instead of having that fix cascade through the whole opening hand sequence.

Both Alexis and Paul raise something of an interesting point: The “fix” for Improper Drawing at Start of Game does presume that the player may be able to gain an advantage from a “free” mulligan in this procedure. Even the philosophy section of the MIPG for the infraction is clear on that point…

This is generally a minor infraction and deserves a fairly minor penalty. Removing one more cards than the player was supposed to have is quick, simple and avoids the possibility of a player gaining an advantage if he or she just wished to reshuffle his or her cards and draw a new hand.

…making it something of a punitive fix in a situation where we believe the error was accidental. If the error was genuinely accidental, once you've asked a few questions about the situation to feel comfortable, why wouldn't a judge just fix the error and move on?

That being said, I can also see why a “free” mulligan from a judge would be viewed as something of an unfair advantage by other players. And yes, I could see why having a bit of a punitive fix here is a discouragement to making a simple error with the player taking some precautions to verify the count of cards for the opening hand first before looking at them. Some players may see that “free” mulligan as a benefit for making an error, especially when they compare it to the other situations where we don't fix the error, such as a card being in the wrong zone after a turn, or even offer the opponent a choice as to whether a player gets a trigger they accidentally missed.

I feel the punitive nature of this fix is justified. Imagine we remove the
punitive portion of this fix:

I'm a player at a PTQ. I've just taken my first mulligan. I draw my cards
one at a time. After I've seen my first 5 cards, I only have 1 land. If my
6th card isn't a land, I am going to draw a 7th without breaking my pace of
draw. Then, possibly without even looking at my card after it touches my
hand, I will immediately call a judge on myself. I'll tell the judge “This
is the 7th card” and show him the card. But I know that he can't use that
information. It's already in my hand. He has to take a random card. So now
I have a 5/7 chance that by going through the motion of faking an improper
draw I will get a keepable hand when I would have had to mulligan. And if I
can't keep the hand, I'm in no worse position than I was a second ago.

The potential for abuse of the fix here is massive.

This is Comp REL. Players should be able to count to six. We do not need to
treat them with kid gloves when they fail at such a basic task with such
potentially significant ramifications for the game.

Let's also consider that drawing improperly at the start of the game is not something one's opponent can be held accountable for. Similar to the difference between DEC and GRV-induced drawing, one is clearly disruptive to the match's integrity while the other is on some level preventable. The remedy must be punitive because, while during the course of an event the mistake may be innocuous, if you're in single-elimination rounds and you haven't had prior warnings, there'd be no reason for you not to engage in Joshua's scenario above.

Yes, it's a “deviation” in how it's handled across RELs, but the philosophy is completely correct, and I feel that's far more important.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I'm a player at a PTQ. I've just taken my first mulligan. I draw my cards
one at a time. After I've seen my first 5 cards, I only have 1 land. If my
6th card isn't a land, I am going to draw a 7th without breaking my pace of
draw. Then, possibly without even looking at my card after it touches my
hand, I will immediately call a judge on myself. I'll tell the judge “This
is the 7th card” and show him the card. But I know that he can't use that
information. It's already in my hand. He has to take a random card. So now
I have a 5/7 chance that by going through the motion of faking an improper
draw I will get a keepable hand when I would have had to mulligan. And if I
can't keep the hand, I'm in no worse position than I was a second ago.

The potential for abuse of the fix here is massive.

The same logic could apply to any number of infractions for which the penalty is only a Warning. (Consider, for example, a player “forgetting” his opponent's Thalia and casting a Brainstorm for {U}, and immediately starting to resolve it.) There are many cases where there is huge potential for abuse if you're willing to assume ill intent (and that a judge won't detect it).

Edited Vincent Roscioli (March 6, 2013 09:59:39 AM)

Yes, you can try to use similar logic for other infractions. But there is a difference between potential abuse for different infractions and how the IPG has us handle them is based in part on this. I think that the we have hashed out the logic behind this to a point which we can wrap this up or wait for something from the people that actually wrote the document.

We could argue about the “penalty” of the remedy for some other infractions, as well. But do try to separate, in your own mind, the “penalty” (Warning/GL/etc) from the “remedy”; the remedy attempts to correct or minimize the damage to the integrity of the game.

Keep in mind that, when we introduced the “forced mulligan” with the first iteration of Improper Drawing at Start of Game, it was a way to repair the game state and thus avoid a Game Loss for what was an easy and (usually) honest mistake.

(It's been a LONG time since we added ID@SoG, and my memory is both fuzzy and all I have to go on - I've lost those really old IPG archives, apparently…)

Anyway - duly noted, some people are concerned that the remedy for ID@SoG is extreme. I don't want this to sound flippant, but my response really is “don't screw up drawing your hand”. Sort of like the oft-repeated “don't miss your triggers”. Yes, it's an easy mistake to make - but it's even easier to avoid.

d:^D

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

The same logic could apply to any number of infractions for which the penalty is only a Warning. (Consider, for example, a player “forgetting” his opponent's Thalia and casting a Brainstorm for {U}, and immediately starting to resolve it.) There are many cases where there is huge potential for abuse if you're willing to assume ill intent (and that a judge won't detect it).

The thing to remember is that not all infractions are equally abusable in practice. Under a microscope, the Thalia trick doesn't pass the smell test as far as a judge determining intent. While most matches in a competitive event aren't played under a microscope, it should still be disadvantageous to a player to make common errors, intentionally or not, over the course of a full event, and that's why we upgrade penalties for repeated infractions.

In lieu of an official answer, I still like having these discussions among us day-to-day judges about the ramifications and subtleties of the IPG, which I presume draw the bulk of their feedback from top-level play.

Also, I don't know if players would prefer that we just change the penalty to match “Drawing Extra Cards” and just give a game loss every time? That would also limit the potential for abuse. However, it would also be a 100% game loss every time, whereas the honest player who fumbles his first mulligan still has at least a chance to play that game with a 5-card hand.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

(It's been a LONG time since we added ID@SoG, and my memory is both fuzzy and all I have to go on - I've lost those really old IPG archives, apparently…)

That's mostly why I question it today.
Is there a real philosophy brhind this or is it only a we-always-did-that way to handle it?

Originally posted by Alexis Rassel:

I look at this is a penalty between W and GL because W seems too light and GL too harsh. And I don't like this idea.

(oops… I did not notice 2nd page. I sad that nobody post in today)

>I look at this is a penalty between W and GL because W seems too light and GL too harsh. And I don't like this idea.

I think so too.
and I think that to give mulligan is not good as penalty.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Anyway - duly noted, some people are concerned that the remedy for ID@SoG is extreme. I don't want this to sound flippant, but my response really is “don't screw up drawing your hand”. Sort of like the oft-repeated “don't miss your triggers”. Yes, it's an easy mistake to make - but it's even easier to avoid.

Step of beginning of game has changed a little while ago?
“show number of sideboard”
In the same way, why does it require that to clarify the number of first hand?
As a premise, it will change the type of penalty ID @ SOG.

The rules are, ultimately, created to serve the players; they would be meaningless without them. With that in mind, think about the game as a player too. If you mistakenly drew 8 cards instead of 7, immediately called a judge, and were issued a GL, how would that make you feel? For me, at least, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not espousing ever compromising the integrity of the tournament to spare feelings (or for any reason), but I think most judges will agree W is a fair penalty. The integrity of the game is not severely compromised since no cards have been played.

Then, as Scott Marshall pointed out, the fix is separate. The game needs to be brought back to a state that offers as little advantage as possible for either player. A forced mulligan does this, but what advantage does a forced mulligan offer over extra cards(+1)? The “Judge's mulligan” does have some punitive elements, but a W would not be sufficient to stop a player from “accidentally” drawing an extra card in order to gain a free mulligan. No fix should ever give a potential advantage to the player who made an error in my opinion.