Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week we have a scenario inspired by Alex Kelemen, coming in at our Silver difficulty ranking. That means L2+ judges should wait until after their local FNMs to contribute their opinions or guidance.

Here are your blog post and scenario:

Albert is playing against Nora in PPTQ. Albert has lost game 1, and they are moving to game 2.

Albert swaps some cards in from his sideboard, presents, then draws his opening 7. There's only one land, so he decides to mulligan. He puts his hand back on top, says “Hmm, actually…” and swaps one more pair of cards from his main deck and sideboard. He then shuffles thoroughly, presents to Nora, and draws 6. At this point, Nora says, “Hold on a minute. I don't think you're allowed to sideboard between mulligans.”

Albert responds, “Uh oh. I think you're right. Judge!”

What do you do?

Before reading:

This one took me a bit! I eventually settled on Tournament Error: Decklist Problem. It’s most similar to the example “A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.” Which is effectively what’s happened here, albeit in a really spectacular way.

First of all, I’d interview Albert and ask why he chose to sideboard then. Assuming there’s no ill will here to cheat in some way (which I can’t imagine how) I’d go ahead and hit him with the Tournament Error. He gets a game loss (which sinks him for the match) and is reminded to reset his deck properly for the next round.

Then we get to Nora. This is … trickier. I’m puzzled why she didn’t call for a judge the moment he began side boarding, but I don’t think there’s any actual violation here to call.

After reading:

Well, I'm first up, so none to check against. :) This is one I'm decidedly unsure of, I will note.

Edited Sean Riley (Aug. 28, 2015 11:25:40 AM)

I'd assess Tournament Error: Decklist Problem. This comes with a Game Loss that we're instructed to apply to the next round:

Originally posted by IPG:

Penalties for decklist errors discovered during a deckcheck and deck errors are issued immediately. Other decklist penalties are issued at the start of the next round to minimize the disruption to the match currently being played…

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that he now gets to mulligan down to 6 with a revised sideboard and a penalty hanging over him in the next round, particularly as it feels unfair to Norma, but can't find a reason to deviate here.
<<I noticed that the delayed GL applies to Decklist errors after I posted>>

The other option is to downgrade to a Warning:

Originally posted by IPG:

Downgrade: If a player, before taking any game actions, discovers a deck (not decklist) problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head Judge may issue a Warning, fix the deck, and, if the player has drawn their opening hand, instruct the player to mulligan. The player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.

The annotated IPG details that we can still apply this downgrade after a mulligan decision and Albert has called a judge so we could downgrade here. The problem here is how we fix the deck - technically its a legal deck and there is no way to confirm what cards were switched in the late sideboarding and the chance that Albert sideboards differently again if we let him make more changes. I suspect this downgrade was created specifically to cover failing to de-sideboard when a player calls it on themselves because its so hard to catch that we wanted to encourage it and that I'm trying to shoehorn this case into it because I'm uncomfortable with the correct ruling.

In the end I'd allow the mulligan to 6 with a TE:D/DL and Game Loss in the following round same game for Albert.

Edited Marc Shotter (Aug. 28, 2015 09:07:47 PM)

I disagree that this is a D/DL infraction, since this doesn't fit any of the criteria set out in the IPG.

In order:
-Austin's deck and decklist contain a legal number of cards
-His deck and decklist contain no illegal cards for the format
-There is no ambiguity in the cards listed in his decklist
-The contents of his presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist exactly, but this is irrelevant since they are in game 2, and players were allowed to sideboard after game 1. All of the cards in his deck and sideboard appear on his decklist in the proper numbers

Those are the only criteria listed for D/DL problem in the IPG, and Austin has not met any of these criteria, so he has not committed a D/DL error.

{Sidebar} Since mulligans are part of the pregame procedure, the game has not yet begun (as per the MTR) and so the IPG example of a player failing to keep deck and sideboard clearly separate should not apply in this situation. {/sidebar}

The only thing that Austin has done wrong is that he has violated the pregame procedure as set out in the MTR. On glancing over the current IPG, there is no infraction that corresponds to this pregame procedure violation, so I think our options are either no infraction, no penalty or to issue a generic TE warning and note that proper pregame procedure was not followed. Since I'm fairly sure we are not able to deviate from the IPG by issuing generic penalties, I would rule no infraction, no penalty, and remind Austin to observe proper pregame procedure.

In any case, there is no remedy to apply, since we are not empowered to alter the sideboarding done by a player.

Edit: The TE section of the IPG states

If a player violates the MTR in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions below, the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the player, but not issue a penalty. Continued disregard of these rules may require further investigation.

This fits the scenario best, so I would issue no penalty.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Aug. 29, 2015 01:56:55 AM)

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

or to issue a generic TE warning and note that proper pregame procedure was not followed.

Does this exist? If you were giving a generic TE warning, what would you write on the back of the player's match slip?

Originally posted by Benjamin Harris:

Does this exist? If you were giving a generic TE warning, what would you write on the back of the player's match slip?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't, which is why I opted for no infraction, no penalty. My point was that this would be the only way to issue an infraction against Austin, rather than trying to contort D/DL problem to fit the scenario.

Before reading other responses:

This sounds kind of like Improper Drawing at Start of Game, but it's not. ID@SoG specifically refers to drawing too many cards, mulliganing when you can't, or not skipping your initial draw step. In this case, the action under suspicion is sideboarding, after the mulligan procedure has started.

The pre-game procedure described in the MTR and the CR is not explicitly ordered, but it does indicate that certain things happen ‘before’ or ‘after’ other things. Generally, players first sideboard, then shuffle, then present, then draw their opening hands, and then make mulligan decisions.

This seems like a Game Rule Violation for Albert, with a penalty of Warning. However, which Game Rule is he actually breaking? This could be a no-infraction situation as well. Given that Albert could gain a bit of information (whether or not Nora is going to keep or mulligan) before making his new sideboard decisions, I think this is an activity we want to discourage. I'd rule GRV - Warning. There is no applicable fix, so the situation remains as-is (Albert has his newly sideboarded deck, and 6 cards in hand).

After reading other responses:

I don't believe TE - D/DL applies here, as Andrew has argued quite well.

It's worth noting that the start-of-game procedures are *also* listed in the comprehensive rules (103.), so this can be treated as the generic GPE-GRV, as opposed to a non-existent generic TE.

Also, while there is some room for Albert to gain advantage, there won't be advantage in most situations, so I'd feel comfortable issuing the warning and tracking. (Assuming, of course, that Albert did not intentionally break a rule he knew about, to gain an advantage. If I believe he actually made his new sideboard decision based on the fact that he was going to 6, or that his opponent was staying at 7, this might veer closer to Cheating territory).

Since I went first, here's my second “After reading”. :)

I'm persuaded by Andrew Keeler. It seems to me that yeah, this is a scenario that doesn't adhere to anything in the IPG, and while it seems really wrong to not penalise this, I think the best thing to do is say, “Please don't do that again,” and then don't issue a penalty.

A question: Let's say Albert does it again. Then what?

I'm less persuaded by Talin Salway's argument that we can assess this under a generic GRV. If it's now ‘play’ and part of the game, then I am again of a mind that it's akin to the deck problem of not keeping sideboard and deck sufficiently separate and it's a tournament error.

I do note that I'm pretty sure I'm incorrect here, and look forward to seeing what the answer is. This may be one of the most educational knowledge pools for me.

Edited Sean Riley (Aug. 31, 2015 06:30:02 AM)

Originally posted by Sean Riley:

This one took me a bit! I eventually settled on Tournament Error: Decklist Problem. It’s most similar to the example “A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.” Which is effectively what’s happened here, albeit in a really spectacular way.

Originally posted by Sean Riley:

I'm persuaded by Andrew Keeler. It seems to me that yeah, this is a scenario that doesn't adhere to anything in the IPG, and while it seems really wrong to not penalise this, I think the best thing to do is say, “Please don't do that again,” and then don't issue a penalty.

I actually think you had it right the first time, Sean. Once a player presents their deck, they've effectively stated that they are done sideboarding. Their board is their board, and their deck is their deck. Therefore, this scenario meets the criteria you discussed.

Quote from IPG.3,
>If a player violates the Magic Tournament Rules in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions listed below,
the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the player, but not issue a penalty. Continued or willful
disregard of these rules may require further investigation.

this problem doesn't correspond to any infraction.
So I applied no penalty,I warn Albert.

Before Reading:

This is a violation of the Magic Tournament Rules that does not have an applicable infraction in the IPG. I would advise Albert that once his deck is presented he is unable to make further sideboarding decisions for the game. I would request Albert to not do this in the future.

After Reading:

As this is a violation of the Pregame Procedure, I don't feel this can be accepted as a TE: D/DLP from the noted example “A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.”

I do feel like TE: D/DLP is reasonable but I don't see it supported by the IPG. I am eager to see the answer and Philosophy behind this Knowledge Pool.

@Sean:
If Albert repeats this behavior you would likely want to begin an investigation with potential infractions in the Unsporting Conduct category. I would likely be leaning toward UC: Minor with the following example “A player fails to follow the request of a tournament official, such as being asked to leave the play area.”

Edited Jacob Kriner (Sept. 1, 2015 07:00:51 AM)

Does the fact that pre-game procedure is part of Tournament Policy override the fact that it is also part of the game rules?

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

Does the fact that pre-game procedure is part of Tournament Policy override the fact that it is also part of the game rules?

From the Introduction of the MTR:

Excerpt from MTG MTR Intro
Information in this document may contradict (or have information not contained in) the Comprehensive Rules. In such cases, this document takes precedence.

I believe the Pregame Procedure in the MTR will take Precedence over that described in the Comprehensive Rules.

I would still suggest that it is a TE D/DL. As soon as a player has presented their deck for randomisation to the opponent their deck is their deck and sideboard their sideboard.

“A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.”

Retracted….

Edited David Plathe (Sept. 1, 2015 07:45:56 AM)

Originally posted by David Plathe:

“A player looking at her sideboard during a game fails to keep it clearly separate from her deck.”

David, when does a game begin? ;)