Hey guys!

I was paging through the IPG when I thought of something…

If Ashe decides not to take a Mulligan, sees Neil take one, and then goes “oops, I meant to take one anyway,” the infraction is IDaSoG, so she gets a Warning, but… do we apply the additional remedy and take one card out of her hand after she mulligans? (Extra = 0, Extra + 1 = 1) I would assume not, as there are no extra cards (and it does seem harsh), but the IPG doesn't say otherwise. I don't think I've ever had this happen to me (a lot of players aren't even aware that mulligans are simultaneous).

Any fficial posture on this?

I can't wield the magic ‘O’, but I see no issue with pulling a card out of their hand, and it's what the policy says to do, so that works out nicely.

They're supposed to have N cards, and they have N cards, so they have 0 extra, we yank 1 more than that. We don't want to encourage people to attempt a free mulligan for the low low price if just a warning.

I would argue that giving them a warning and letting them know that subsequent offenses will result in a GL should be enough. I mean, they're not supposed to have taken a mulligan, so we're going to take away a card (which will drop them to five or four cards) and potentially affect the outcome of the game? I always thought the “take away N + 1” fix was there to protect an opponent from a player potentially gaining an advantage from having access to more cards than they should.

And to add to my original post: Regardless of whether we take away a card or not, do we allow them to continue mulliganing? They technically aren't supposed to, but it feels like we should. We can't force them to keep a junk hand.

Originally posted by Yukio Victoria:

I would argue that giving them a warning and letting them know that subsequent offenses will result in a GL should be enough.

If they're careful players, that basically gives them a freebie attempt every tournament. Sure, if they get caught a bunch it might get picked up later on as a judge catches on and maybe triggers something with the Investigations folks.

Originally posted by Yukio Victoria:

I mean, they're not supposed to have taken a mulligan, so we're going to take away a card (which will drop them to five or four cards) and potentially affect the outcome of the game? I always thought the “take away N + 1” fix was there to protect an opponent from a player potentially gaining an advantage from having access to more cards than they should.

Yup. Keep in mind, if they're starting with 7 cards and improperly mull to 6, that's 6 cards they shouldn't have access to now.

Originally posted by Yukio Victoria:

And to add to my original post: Regardless of whether we take away a card or not, do we allow them to continue mulliganing? They technically aren't supposed to, but it feels like we should. We can't force them to keep a junk hand.

Yup. It's stated pretty black and white as the last sentence of the additional remedy. (the definition includes taking a mulligan when they shouldn't have, so the unqualified remedy fits)

Edited Chris Nowak (April 7, 2015 10:45:48 PM)

Sorry for the delay in providing an ‘O’, as requested…

Weird as it may seem, the IPG is clear that ID@SoG applies, and the remedy is to remove 1 card at random, then let them continue to mulligan if they want. Most important is making sure they understand correct mulligan process.

d:^D