Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
June 18, 2019 10:02:17 PM [Original Post]
- David Lachance-Poitras
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- Canada - Eastern Provinces
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
Hello,
Last weekend I got this situation at the MCQ I was judging:
This is the start of the match, Anton drew the first four cards of their opening hand from the top of their Library and laid them face down in front of them. They then proceded to draw the remaining three card but accidentally drew four cards instead and saw them before realizing their error.
At the moment I took the call, the last cards drawn were still in their hand and the first 4 cards drawn were still face down on their playmat. Investigation concluded that the extra card draw was not intentional. Also confirmed that both sets of cards drawn never touched each other.
This is a Mulligan Procedure Error and the fix is to let Anton choose between:
-Option1: Reveal their (whole) hand and opponent chooses an amount of cards
Option 2: Mulligan again.
However, in this case, since the first four cards of the opening hand were clearly identified (laid down on their playmat) and the extra card being on the second set (held in their hand) It could have been logical to, had Anton chosen Option 1, to apply the fix only on the set of the last 4 cards drawn instead or the whole hand, based on the philosophy of HCE to operate that kind of fix on the smallest set possible.
Going that way would be a deviation from Policy, since :
A. The remedy specifically stated to reveal their hand, which implies revealing the whole hand.
B. The philosophy to operate the “thoughtseize fix” on the smallest set possible is stated in the philosophy section of HCE, but not MPE.
Is there a reason why the “Operate on smallest set possible” philosophy of HCE is not applied on MPE cases where a relatively similar remedy can be applied ?
Is such a deviation reasonable for this situation ?
Thanks !
Edit: fixed a typo
Last weekend I got this situation at the MCQ I was judging:
This is the start of the match, Anton drew the first four cards of their opening hand from the top of their Library and laid them face down in front of them. They then proceded to draw the remaining three card but accidentally drew four cards instead and saw them before realizing their error.
At the moment I took the call, the last cards drawn were still in their hand and the first 4 cards drawn were still face down on their playmat. Investigation concluded that the extra card draw was not intentional. Also confirmed that both sets of cards drawn never touched each other.
This is a Mulligan Procedure Error and the fix is to let Anton choose between:
-Option1: Reveal their (whole) hand and opponent chooses an amount of cards
Option 2: Mulligan again.
However, in this case, since the first four cards of the opening hand were clearly identified (laid down on their playmat) and the extra card being on the second set (held in their hand) It could have been logical to, had Anton chosen Option 1, to apply the fix only on the set of the last 4 cards drawn instead or the whole hand, based on the philosophy of HCE to operate that kind of fix on the smallest set possible.
Going that way would be a deviation from Policy, since :
A. The remedy specifically stated to reveal their hand, which implies revealing the whole hand.
B. The philosophy to operate the “thoughtseize fix” on the smallest set possible is stated in the philosophy section of HCE, but not MPE.
Is there a reason why the “Operate on smallest set possible” philosophy of HCE is not applied on MPE cases where a relatively similar remedy can be applied ?
Is such a deviation reasonable for this situation ?
Thanks !
Edit: fixed a typo
Edited David Lachance-Poitras (June 18, 2019 10:07:11 PM)
June 18, 2019 11:23:11 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]
- Mark Brown
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 2 (Oceanic Judge Association)), Scorekeeper
- Australia and New Zealand
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
While the AIPG annotations are not strictly policy, they are interpretations of policy that provide greater detail/information relating to the policy, I agree with Caleb. “Dealing” cards face down onto the table is not “Drawing” cards.
The assumption for MPE is that the issue will be discovered when the player looks at their opening hand. Unlike HCE where there can often be separation of sets of cards, MPE will generally operate on the whole hand.
In this instance though I would remove one of the face down cards back to the library, the cards haven't been drawn yet.
The assumption for MPE is that the issue will be discovered when the player looks at their opening hand. Unlike HCE where there can often be separation of sets of cards, MPE will generally operate on the whole hand.
In this instance though I would remove one of the face down cards back to the library, the cards haven't been drawn yet.
June 18, 2019 10:27:41 PM
- Caleb Gordon
-
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Foundry))
- Canada - Western Provinces
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
Heya David!
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but the player did not look at the four facedown cards, correct?
If so, I think this is covered by the annotated MTR 2.3 5:
5: Each player draws seven cards. Optionally, these cards may be dealt face down on the table.
A: This rule defines the starting hand size for sanctioned tournament play. The method of drawing these cards is inconsequential as long as far as exactly seven cards are drawn. Dealing the cards face down on the table does not mean they are drawn. Many players do this to count out the cards to make sure they get the correct number."
HOWEVER I'm still very interested in the answers to the rest of your questions, for which I have no idea the answers to.
All the best!
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but the player did not look at the four facedown cards, correct?
If so, I think this is covered by the annotated MTR 2.3 5:
5: Each player draws seven cards. Optionally, these cards may be dealt face down on the table.
A: This rule defines the starting hand size for sanctioned tournament play. The method of drawing these cards is inconsequential as long as far as exactly seven cards are drawn. Dealing the cards face down on the table does not mean they are drawn. Many players do this to count out the cards to make sure they get the correct number."
HOWEVER I'm still very interested in the answers to the rest of your questions, for which I have no idea the answers to.
All the best!
Edited Caleb Gordon (June 18, 2019 10:31:18 PM)
June 18, 2019 11:23:11 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]
- Mark Brown
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 2 (Oceanic Judge Association)), Scorekeeper
- Australia and New Zealand
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
While the AIPG annotations are not strictly policy, they are interpretations of policy that provide greater detail/information relating to the policy, I agree with Caleb. “Dealing” cards face down onto the table is not “Drawing” cards.
The assumption for MPE is that the issue will be discovered when the player looks at their opening hand. Unlike HCE where there can often be separation of sets of cards, MPE will generally operate on the whole hand.
In this instance though I would remove one of the face down cards back to the library, the cards haven't been drawn yet.
The assumption for MPE is that the issue will be discovered when the player looks at their opening hand. Unlike HCE where there can often be separation of sets of cards, MPE will generally operate on the whole hand.
In this instance though I would remove one of the face down cards back to the library, the cards haven't been drawn yet.
June 19, 2019 03:53:01 AM
- Damien Berry
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- Australia and New Zealand
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
I'm in agreement with Mark here, that we can simply take one random face-down card not yet seen, and put that card back into the library.
The 4 face-down cards haven't yet been added to the hand, so they still belong to the library (For which I'm positive there's a quote in one of the policy docs).
The 4 face-down cards are still unknown to all players, so they are just as random as the rest of the cards in the library - they just have a different physical location.
So we have a set of 4 unknown cards belonging to the library zone, one of which is in an incorrect location. This isn't HCE, because the identity isn't known by either player. Equally, I don't believe this is MPE, because the player hasn't incorrectly drawn their opening hand (or some other MP violation), as the cards remain face-down on the table.
The 4 face-down cards haven't yet been added to the hand, so they still belong to the library (For which I'm positive there's a quote in one of the policy docs).
The 4 face-down cards are still unknown to all players, so they are just as random as the rest of the cards in the library - they just have a different physical location.
So we have a set of 4 unknown cards belonging to the library zone, one of which is in an incorrect location. This isn't HCE, because the identity isn't known by either player. Equally, I don't believe this is MPE, because the player hasn't incorrectly drawn their opening hand (or some other MP violation), as the cards remain face-down on the table.
June 19, 2019 07:10:37 AM
- Scott Marshall
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame
- USA - Southwest
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
Originally posted by Damien Berry:I was certain you were right - but it seems that wording was part of Drawing Extra Cards, or perhaps even an earlier version of HCE; in any case, it seems it's no longer in the IPG.
(For which I'm positive there's a quote in one of the policy docs).
However, that philosophy remains valid. If a player accidentally sets aside too many cards to be drawn in that manner, face down, then the random nature of the library means that those cards are also random, and any of them could be returned to the library without damaging the integrity of the game (and without infraction).
Of course, this goes out the window once the library is no longer completely random (tucking an Approach of the Second Sun, for example).
d:^D
June 19, 2019 11:17:24 AM
- David Lachance-Poitras
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- Canada - Eastern Provinces
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
Thanks for the explanations for the case described in my original post. Very informative!
Follow up question:
Let's say there is an alternate reality where Anton saw the identity of the first 4 cards (or opponent cannot confirm Anton saw them) before putting them face down on their playmat before making the error when drawing the remaining cards.
We would apply the MPE remedy as written even though we know that the extra card is identifiable from the last set of cards drawn ?
Follow up question:
Let's say there is an alternate reality where Anton saw the identity of the first 4 cards (or opponent cannot confirm Anton saw them) before putting them face down on their playmat before making the error when drawing the remaining cards.
We would apply the MPE remedy as written even though we know that the extra card is identifiable from the last set of cards drawn ?
June 19, 2019 10:54:21 PM
- Mark Brown
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 2 (Oceanic Judge Association)), Scorekeeper
- Australia and New Zealand
Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?
If the player has drawn the first 4 cards into their hand, then set them aside and drawn 4 more, I'm inclined to just go with the standard MPE process. There is no good reason to deviate from policy.
I certainly understand making the argument that HCE allows you to operate from the smallest set, but that infraction doesn't have a forced mulligan option available. For me, having the option if available to only reveal a smaller set than the whole hand serves a similar purpose to allowing the player to choose to mulligan. It's reducing the information the opponent sees.
As written, I don't see any option to use the HCE option for MPE. I would suggest reaching out to Toby if you think that MPE should have that as an option as well.
I certainly understand making the argument that HCE allows you to operate from the smallest set, but that infraction doesn't have a forced mulligan option available. For me, having the option if available to only reveal a smaller set than the whole hand serves a similar purpose to allowing the player to choose to mulligan. It's reducing the information the opponent sees.
As written, I don't see any option to use the HCE option for MPE. I would suggest reaching out to Toby if you think that MPE should have that as an option as well.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.
- Index
- » Competitive REL
- » Applying MPE fix on the smallest set possible ?