Improper Drawing at Start of Game - in this penalty, judges gives warning “and” mulligan. Kind of penalties are only C-W-GL-ML-DQ. The detail is recorded with WER and if a player repeat same penalty 2nd or 3rd times, he or her have to take higher penalty. I think it is just enough. And additional mulligan often equal to Game Loss. I think it is too heavy. why do judge step in the game? why do not separate penalty from mulligan?

Drawing Extra Cards is in a weird spot - due to the large potential for abuse, a warning isn't a sufficient penalty to deter players from trying to cheat (or to be especially precautionary in avoiding the error), but a game loss is a bit to harsh of a penalty. But since there isn't a penalty between “Warning” and “Game Loss”, we have to default to Game Loss.

With DEC @ Start, there's a potential for abuse as well - suppose I go to draw my 7 and I find it very iffy. I “accidentally” draw an 8th card and call for a judge immediately as I “notice” my error. If the judge were to shuffle only a single card back, I effectively got a chance at a much better hand with no real tangible penalty to me. Yes, this is cheating, and I should rightfully be disqualified, but it's hard to “prove” a cheating allegation (yes, I realize there isn't a burden to prove cheating), and similarly difficult to always be able to detect the foul play. In this case, however, there does exist a penalty that is fair and falls between the Game Loss and the Warning, as we would be able to penalize DEC in an ideal world. By shuffling two cards into the library instead of just one (i.e. one extra card), we eliminate the potential for using DEC @ Start as a way to get a ‘free’ mulligan off the top, while simultaneously providing a penalty that matches the potential for abuse when it truly is an honest mistake.

The official Warning is largely there to make a formal record of the infraction being committed, both for DCI record keeping and to tabulate a pattern (which would make it far more likely that there is foul play, and therefore meriting an investigation). As for upgrading, once it reaches GL status, the “put one extra back” penalty is superseded anyway, so there's not really a case of “double jeopardy”, as you will.

First things first - the upgrade path no only goes as far as GL, not all the way DQ.

Secondly, the fix isn't really to force a mulligan - just to shuffle the extra card(s) + 1 back into the library. And as Trey has explained, this is to attempt to eliminate any potential for advantage.

thank you for response.

One thing that I wondering is about Judge mulligan (in this topic, It means that shuffling the extra card +1 back into the library).
I think that the action beyond the primary role of penalty and intervene in game for player.

Improper Drawing at Start of Game is likely to occur but give big advantage.
so, Game loss is too big, but only warning is too small. so, dose judge let player mulligan.
Is this the correct way of thinking ?

now, Improper Drawing at Start of Game is Game Play Errors.
for example, it is one idea that changing to Tournament Errors and duty to show number of first hand to opponent.

my English is very poor. so may be, my word is inaccuracy and now I can not understand exactly about your good response. If so, I'm sorry it.
(and so, I had been raised previously about this topic in Japan Community, it is first time for me posting to global Community)

I recently asked about the fix we use for Improper Drawing at Start of Game, since it wasn't clear to me why we apply a ‘Judge mulligan’ instead of just telling the player to mulligan normally once more.

After asking at L3, L4, and L5, The answer I was given was: it saves time.

By shuffling the extra card(s) + 1 back, we are doing the work of a whole bunch of shuffling, presenting and shuffling again with a single shuffle. This can be a valuable time saving when one or more mulligans have likely already eaten into the round.
Since the player's hand might equally be good or bad (and the extra cards drawn shouldn't make a difference to the likelihood of either), you're getting the same effect as a mulligan anyway. Unfortunately, players are unlikely to see it this way if they've just drawn 6 land and an accidental 7th, and your fix is to take away two of them and ask if they'd like to go to 4. But as always, the cases which make the rules _seem_ unfair should be in the minority.

Originally posted by James Back:

Unfortunately, players are unlikely to see it this way if they've just drawn 6 land and an accidental 7th, and your fix is to take away two of them and ask if they'd like to go to 4.

My understanding is if they should have 6 and drew 7, you remove 2 cards leaving them at 5 and telling them they can mulligan to 5 again. The “judge mulligan” does not count against their regular mulligans.

The IPG says “the player may continue the mulligan process from that point”. So once you remove two cards, they can choose to keep the remaining 5, or mulligan down to 4. That's what it means. They don't get a “free” mulligan to 5 again.

Mark is correct - if the player chooses to mulligan again, he'll go from 5 cards to 4, not to 5.

And, James is correct - it is (partly) to save time. In fact, the remedy for this infraction used to be a forced mulligan; this method should be a bit quicker.

Nakajima-san, your English is MUCH better than my Japanese, and I sincerely and deeply appreciate you allowing me to use the only (human) language I know.

We want to record the Warning(s), in case there's a pattern that shows up for a player. And, we want the upgrade path to encourage the player to pay attention the rest of the day. Sloppy play usually disrupts the event, to some degree; continuously sloppy play would just be a Bad Thing. So, we Warn players to stop being Sloppy, and if they don't listen, our Warnings get “bigger”.

I want to make sure I have this clear because I don't see where in the IPG it says removing 2 cards counts as another mulligan.

Opening hand: Player draws 7 decides to mulligan
First mulligan: Player draws 7. Judge removes 2 cards, now has 5.
Second mulligan: Player draws 4?

This is the mulligan rule from the Comprehensive rules:
*
103.4. A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a
mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will
take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once
each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take
mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his
or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one
fewer cards than he or she had before. If a player kept his or her hand of
cards, those cards become the player’s opening hand, and that player may
not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no
player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player’s hand size reaches zero
cards, that player must keep that hand.)*

When a player taakes a mulligan it doesn't matter how many mulligans he or
she has already performed, it only matters the amount of cards he had
before. So if a player takes a mulligan with 5 cards in his hand, he or she
will draw a new hand of 4 cards.


2013/3/5 Adam Zakreski <forum-3208@apps.magicjudges.org>

Another judge told me I was wrong the first time I ruled that way and said they should have mulled to 5 as it was their second mulligan. I'll have to go correct him next time I see him. Thanks.

Thanks for many good response.
but may be, point is shifted.

I think so too that shuffling the extra card +1 back into the library instead mulligan.
It is useful to save time.

My problem and question in this topics is that penalty make player mulligan.
Mulligan is not kind of penalty.
Mulligan is one of game-action.
So, I think that judge have not to give mulligan as penalty.

To be honest, I don't really understand the philosophy behind this “in-game” penalty.
If we believe that the potential for abuse is that huge, this should be a GL.
For me, it's not - therefore a W is sufficient. I really would like this remedy to be questioned.

You have to penalize the player who did something wrong somehow. Otherwise this would end in the Opportunity to Free Mulligans. A player taking mulligan to 6 cards seeing this would be another mulligan and in order to evade this he simply draws a seventh card and says: “Oops” with the Judge rewarding this with a “free” mulligan to six again, just because mulligan is a game action.
The rule is simply there to avoid potential abuse of Improper Drawing.

Alexis - There is potential for abuse, but the mistake is also an easy one to make, which is presumably why a warning is deemed sufficient. Remember, the mulligan isn't part of the penalty, it's part of the fix. We're not punishing the player by removing the extra card, we're repairing the state of the game in the fairest way we can.

Edited James Back (March 6, 2013 11:21:41 AM)