Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.
London Mulligan and Assumptions
Aug. 15, 2019 03:45:52 PM [Original Post]
- Chris Wendelboe
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- USA - Northeast
London Mulligan and Assumptions
I recently had a player reach out to me about something that happened, to see what thoughts people have on it. Here is the situation as described.
AP takes a mulligan. NAP also takes a mulligan. While resolving their mulligan AP draws seven and quickly bottoms a card. NAP assumes that AP has kept and decides to take a second mulligan. At this point AP vocalizes that they are still thinking about their decision.
Based on the written rules, AP has done the mulligan process correctly. NAP had a picture of how the mulligan rules work that is incorrect, based on how Arena does it (which is decide to keep and then bottom the cards), based on how the Vancouver mulligan worked (where you would only scry after you have decided to keep), or just from the fact that most people will likely handle this mulligan the same way as Arena.
Back in the days of the Vancouver mulligan, it was assumed that if you looked at one card you had decided to keep (which is why it was strongly encouraged to not look at the top in these cases, or to look at multiple cards if you felt the need to do it). Am I correct that we should not be making similar assumptions here?
Do we do anything for NAP in cases where AP doing the procedure correctly led to confusion? Obviously in this case the player has decided to mulligan to 5 and we cannot “fix” that as there is no way to rebuild the previous hand and we cannot let them just continue with another mulligan to six. However, if NAP had said “I will keep”, would we hold them to that declaration? Would that change based on whether AP kept or took a mulligan?
My personal stance on this is that AP has done nothing wrong and is following the letter of the rules (which, granted, I think are only that way because of Serum Powder), though I would advise them to be clear with their communication while bottoming with something like “I am still deciding if I wish to keep this hand”. If NAP decided to keep, I would rule that they made that decision based on the assumption that AP was keeping, and I would not hold them to that if AP decided to mulligan. If NAP decided to mulligan, I would inform them that there is no way we can fix this and I would hold them to the mulligan to 5.
I'm not really looking for an “O” answer, mostly looking to spark discussion.
AP takes a mulligan. NAP also takes a mulligan. While resolving their mulligan AP draws seven and quickly bottoms a card. NAP assumes that AP has kept and decides to take a second mulligan. At this point AP vocalizes that they are still thinking about their decision.
Based on the written rules, AP has done the mulligan process correctly. NAP had a picture of how the mulligan rules work that is incorrect, based on how Arena does it (which is decide to keep and then bottom the cards), based on how the Vancouver mulligan worked (where you would only scry after you have decided to keep), or just from the fact that most people will likely handle this mulligan the same way as Arena.
Back in the days of the Vancouver mulligan, it was assumed that if you looked at one card you had decided to keep (which is why it was strongly encouraged to not look at the top in these cases, or to look at multiple cards if you felt the need to do it). Am I correct that we should not be making similar assumptions here?
Do we do anything for NAP in cases where AP doing the procedure correctly led to confusion? Obviously in this case the player has decided to mulligan to 5 and we cannot “fix” that as there is no way to rebuild the previous hand and we cannot let them just continue with another mulligan to six. However, if NAP had said “I will keep”, would we hold them to that declaration? Would that change based on whether AP kept or took a mulligan?
My personal stance on this is that AP has done nothing wrong and is following the letter of the rules (which, granted, I think are only that way because of Serum Powder), though I would advise them to be clear with their communication while bottoming with something like “I am still deciding if I wish to keep this hand”. If NAP decided to keep, I would rule that they made that decision based on the assumption that AP was keeping, and I would not hold them to that if AP decided to mulligan. If NAP decided to mulligan, I would inform them that there is no way we can fix this and I would hold them to the mulligan to 5.
I'm not really looking for an “O” answer, mostly looking to spark discussion.
Aug. 15, 2019 04:20:58 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]
- Shawn Doherty
- Judge (Level 5 (Judge Foundry))
- USA - Midatlantic
London Mulligan and Assumptions
Based on what is described, AP didn't do anything wrong. They mulliganed correctly and pointed out NAP's mistake when they saw it. NAP made a poor assumption about AP keeping their hand.
NAP has made an error based on misunderstanding how mulliganing works.
If NAP's hand is still separate from their hand, then I wouldn't hold them to their decision to mulligan. They would be able to wait until AP makes a decision.
If NAP has already mixed their hand with their library, then the are locked into mulliganing again.
I would educate NAP with how the mulligan rules work and encourage them to confirm that AP is keeping before making decisions in the future.
There's no advantage gained by NAP mulliganing too early, so I don't think any penalties are needed here. Just educate, clarify, and move on.
NAP has made an error based on misunderstanding how mulliganing works.
If NAP's hand is still separate from their hand, then I wouldn't hold them to their decision to mulligan. They would be able to wait until AP makes a decision.
If NAP has already mixed their hand with their library, then the are locked into mulliganing again.
I would educate NAP with how the mulligan rules work and encourage them to confirm that AP is keeping before making decisions in the future.
There's no advantage gained by NAP mulliganing too early, so I don't think any penalties are needed here. Just educate, clarify, and move on.
Aug. 15, 2019 04:21:59 PM
- Isaac King
-
- Judge (Level 1 (Judge Foundry))
- Barriere, British Columbia, Canada
London Mulligan and Assumptions
Originally posted by Chris Wendelboe:
Am I correct that we should not be making similar assumptions here?
Yes, AP has done exactly what they were supposed to. We don't punish players for following the rules.
Aug. 15, 2019 04:27:34 PM
- Federico Verdini
-
- Judge (Level 2 (International Judge Program))
- Hispanic America - South
London Mulligan and Assumptions
I believe NAP mistake is a clear example of
Trivial process errors that provide no advantage, such as declaring an intent to mulligan early, are not an infraction.
Edited Federico Verdini (Aug. 15, 2019 04:27:58 PM)
Aug. 15, 2019 05:55:20 PM
- Chris Wendelboe
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- USA - Northeast
London Mulligan and Assumptions
Oh 100% I agree there is no infraction here, just curious on the best way to handle the resulting conversation.
Aug. 16, 2019 07:48:49 PM
- Scott Marshall
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame
- USA - Southwest
London Mulligan and Assumptions
Originally posted by Chris Wendelboe:I start by exhibiting patience and politeness, but - unfortunately - NAP in this example usually pushes me to the point of just brusquely informing them that they made a poor assumption, and now they get to live with the consequences. :)
just curious on the best way to handle the resulting conversation
Seriously, Shawn's answer is spot-on, esp. the part about making sure NAP understands the correct procedure for mulligans.
d:^D
Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 16, 2019 07:49:05 PM)
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.
- Index
- » Competitive REL
- » London Mulligan and Assumptions