2006-07 tournament rules docs up!

[NoPoke]

Ditto I both agree with you and disagree.

AGREE:
The game state is messed up and unrecoverable for both an illegal mulligan and an illegal mid game shuffle of the hand into the deck.

DISAGREE:
It is impractical to apply the same penalty under both circumstances. Mid game there will be evidence that a judge can use to decide what happened. But during the opening mulligan there is likely to be NOTHING that a judge can use to decide what happened.

We already have problems with the subjective call of stalling. Lets not add another subjective call to the list of Severe penalties.

 

[GymLeaderPhil]

Honestly, if you feel uncomfortable about receving a game loss out of error when you did indeed show your hand to your opponent earlier - make it a habit to call a judge over, show the judge OR show both players next to you what you mulliganed.

I honestly feel as though such early game questions should not pose a huge delay for the event staff. From my experience judges should only be checking whether or not players have placed the correct number of prizes down that early into the round. There's no other issues that could delay the match by asking a judge to verify the mulligan. I don't see a problem with it at all.

 

[Ditto]

Ditto I both agree with you and disagree.

AGREE:
The game state is messed up and unrecoverable for both an illegal mulligan and an illegal mid game shuffle of the hand into the deck.

DISAGREE:
It is impractical to apply the same penalty under both circumstances. Mid game there will be evidence that a judge can use to decide what happened. But during the opening mulligan there is likely to be NOTHING that a judge can use to decide what happened.

We already have problems with the subjective call of stalling. Lets not add another subjective call to the list of Severe penalties.

I think you are misunderstanding. To quote myself from an earlier post...

I want to distinguish between two discussions that seem to be getting intertwined.

First, we have the debate about what the penalty should be if a Judge CAN prove that one player did not show their hand to their opponent before shuffling his or her hand into their deck for a mulligan. For this, I have suggested that the penalty be a Game Loss. Others have given reasons why a Prize Card is too leinient (ie, trading a bad hand which would be an auto-loss for a better hand and being down one prize), and myself, along with others, have also pointed out how this type of infraction can logically fit into Game-Play Error: Severe, for which the penalty is a Game Loss.

Second, we have the debate about what to do when it CAN'T be proven whether the Mulligan was performed correctly or not. Most of the Judges seem to agree that in this case Warnings should be given to both Players. Profesa_Magma has already shown us how this can be a bad idea. Though, it might be a little extreme, I still don't think it should be overlooked, however, I don't know if there is much that we can do, other than to hope it doesn't come down to things like this.

I just want to make sure that we aren't getting confused and think people are talking about giving out Warnings in the first debate (unless you purposefully mean to, god forbid).


In case anyone could not gleem my stance from my posts, I think that if a Judge CAN prove that a hand was not shown to the opponent, then the penalty should be a Game Loss. If the Judge CAN'T prove what actually happened, I would probably agree that Warnings for both would be the most appropriate (though I would like to see something a bit better than that, it may just not be possible). Obviously, these are just my opinions and nothing I say is official.

So I'm not sure what "evidence" you're talking about needing. The judge KNOWS that the player performed an illegal mulligan, therefore, the pentalty (IMHO) should be a Game Loss, the same as a Mid-Game illegal shuffle.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[PokePop]

I think NoPoke's point is that there will be very few times when a judge CAN be certain and so it is a moot point to talk about it.

 

[Ditto]

I think NoPoke's point is that there will be very few times when a judge CAN be certain and so it is a moot point to talk about it.

Ok, understandable. Still, isn't that why we are talking about calling judges over? So that rather than just letting it happen we can try and prevent it?

Either way, I understand NoPoke's point now, thanks 'Pop.

 

[NoPoke]

Ditto,
Pop has it! I don't like rules/penalties that can't be reliably or consistantly applied.

I agree that prevention is better than cure.

FWIW. In the case where a player deliberately shuffles a hand away to gain advantage from abuse of the mulligan rule AND a judge sees such action then the appropriate starting point is a DQ for cheating.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

The game state is "broken" though. There is no way to figure out what cards were in that opening hand. By your example, shuffling in cards would never create a "broken" game state, as the player could always just shuffle and draw however many cards they had. I think you can see how that is not right.

Not exactally.

See, at the beginning of the game, you could potentially shuffle your hand into your deck an infinite number of times and never really break the gamestate because you're going to have to draw a new hand anyway.

Shuffling on a mulligan is something that happens all the time. If I don't show my opponent once, OMG! GAME LOSS! That sounds incredibly unfair for such a minor error.

And If I really need to win a game, I can LIE about my opponent shuffling in a mulligan. I get a free win, but at the cost of a warning for not agreeing on the gamestate.

 

[Mewchou]

Just to verify, even if you show your basic-less opening hand to a judge, you still MUST show it to your opponent before shuffling it back in, correct?

 

[Ditto]

Not exactally.

See, at the beginning of the game, you could potentially shuffle your hand into your deck an infinite number of times and never really break the gamestate because you're going to have to draw a new hand anyway.

No, from the moment you draw your first card is when the gamestate starts. By the rules you HAVE to draw your first 7 cards, so from the moment you draw one, you have to draw the next 6 and that is your starting hand. It HAS to be your starting hand, unless you don't have a basic pokemon of course, which is why there are rules for when that happens. So if you do anything other than this, and there is not a way to prove what 7 cards were in your starting hand, then the gamestate is broken beyond repair.

Shuffling on a mulligan is something that happens all the time. If I don't show my opponent once, OMG! GAME LOSS! That sounds incredibly unfair for such a minor error.

It is NOT a minor error, it is a GAME CHANGING error. Some games are won and lost by the opening hand. Go ask Jason K. if he thinks the first hand matters or not, I have a feeling it will be one of the most important parts to him (not THE most maybe, but pretty high up there).

Just because something like this "happens all the time," doesn't mean that it's not a big problem and needs to be handled. If you play by the rules then there's no reason to be worried about a game loss, since it will never happen to you if you play how you're supposed to.

And If I really need to win a game, I can LIE about my opponent shuffling in a mulligan. I get a free win, but at the cost of a warning for not agreeing on the gamestate.

Actually, what we've been discussing is that if two players can't agree on a gamestate then it's Warnings for both, not Warning for one, Game Loss for the other. Check my post a few back and I clarify the two conversations going on.

Since then though, we've started talking about ways we can prevent it from getting to that, such as showing your hand to a judge before you shuffle in.

Just to verify, even if you show your basic-less opening hand to a judge, you still MUST show it to your opponent before shuffling it back in, correct?

I believe somewhere it used to say that you could show it to the opponent, or if you didn't feel comfortable with that, then you could show it to a judge only. I could be wrong though or that could have changed. I look at that along the same lines of having a judge shuffle for you and then neither player is allowed to cut.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

Dude if that's true I'm always gonna show it to the judge only. Don't wanna give the opponent any advantage.

OMG!!

Me to!





Ditto - Although it's been fun, there is nothing more I can add. cya.

 

[NoPoke]

I certain that the only showing to a judge is reserved for when you perform a search action that fails. If your opponent questions you then you only show your deck to the judge.

I agree with Mewchou: even if the mulligan is confirmed by a judge the opponent still gets to see it.

 

[Ice'Cold]

For those against a severe penalty, say I am playing against you in t8 at say a regionals, I haven't been given any other penalties at that event, nor do I have any previous record. We draw our starting hands and mine looks something like 1 holon magnemite, 2 DRE, 1 Briney, 2 Dark Tyranitar, 1 Dark Ampharos. Is that hand basically an automatic loss regardless of what my opponent has? 99% of the time you would probably agree that it is. As oppose to being forced into taking that hand I just put my cards back into the deck and start shuffling. You go hey, what are you doing? I say mulliganing, and what is your response going to be? Shouldn't that be a VERY serious penalty for breaking the gamestate like that?

 

[Prime]

Either that, or incorporate a rule where people can mulligan once in the beginning of the game if they don't like their hand and draw equal to the same amount of cards or 1 less. I wouldn't be against that addition to the game.

 

[Lawman]

One must still show the "mulligan" hand to the opponent. You cannot avoid that. A judge can verify if you did a search and "claimed" that you didnt have X or find Y w/o showing the opponent.

Keith

 

[NoPoke]

Ice'cold,

If you are prepared to abuse the mulligan then you will do so even if the penalty is a game loss. Why? Because there is no way that a judge will know who is telling the truth: your opponent claiming that you didn't show it or you claiming that you did.

Should accidentally forgetting to show a mulligan when you actually did not have a basic be a game loss? After all that is the most likely circumstance, assuming that the majority of players are honest that is. The game loss (especially in swiss) just seems too much. So I prefer a warning, I can escalate: I'm not tied to a warning even if it is the recomended penalty. Going in with a game loss when neither player has finished setting up just seems far too strong.

--------------

I can still DQ a player if they try to fake a mulligan and I have evidence that it is a fake. In fact it more than likely that I will DQ the player.

 

[Ditto]

Ice'cold,

If you are prepared to abuse the mulligan then you will do so even if the penalty is a game loss. Why? Because there is no way that a judge will know who is telling the truth: your opponent claiming that you didn't show it or you claiming that you did.

Should accidentally forgetting to show a mulligan when you actually did not have a basic be a game loss? After all that is the most likely circumstance, assuming that the majority of players are honest that is. The game loss (especially in swiss) just seems too much. So I prefer a warning, I can escalate: I'm not tied to a warning even if it is the recomended penalty. Going in with a game loss when neither player has finished setting up just seems far too strong.

--------------

I can still DQ a player if they try to fake a mulligan and I have evidence that it is a fake. In fact it more than likely that I will DQ the player.

If a player knows that the starting penalty is a Game Loss, then the player that would cheat would still be less likely to try it than if it was something smaller. What if someone saw them just shuffle it in and could back up one of the players? Expessially in a top cut there are more people watching.

And if we take the road that most players are honest, then this shouldn't matter. Mulligans have been here since Base set, most players (save for some in the Junior Division, which we have already stated should be given some slack) should NEVER have a problem with just forgetting to show a mulligan, they've been doing it for years.

So this only affects the cheaters.

 

[meganium45]

Also, at the top 8 of a Regional, or similar sized event, you will most likely have judges all around you, making such a task risky at best.

Think about it...If I have 6 judges on the floor for swiss, won't I have at least 3-4 for the top 8? One judge for every two matches - a lot of eyes to see a few games....

Not worth the risk....especially with the consequences.

Vince

 

[NoPoke]

An honest player has a muligan and believes that they showed it to their opponent. They then realise that the opponent didn't see the mulligan. Maybe they flashed the cards too quickly.

Game Loss ? I hope not!

-------------------------------

An honest player believes that they have a mulligan and shows then shuffles away. Opponent says hey you had a fossil/ or I saw a basic. The honest player is now uncertain

Game Loss? Again I hope not.

------------------

As a judge you see a player has a rubbish openning hand. All seven cards are examined by the player. Instead of placing a basic they hide the card and attempt a flash and mulligan claim. (Hey the game is lost anyway! so might as well try it on)

Game Loss? I hope not.

---------------------------

Which just leaves the dishonest player, and a disputed mulligan, which no one else saw. this breaks down several ways...

1) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a cheap win if the penalty is a game loss.

2) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a fake mulligan so they both draw seven.

3) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent doesn't mulligan. So a fake muligan is attempted.

1) Is only worth trying if the penalty is a game loss.
2) and 3) both end up with he said she said.

Having a game loss penalty as the starting point allows more options to cheat not fewer!

===============

Word will get around between the PTOs of any player who picks up a warning for a disputed muligan procedural error. Expect a judge to be watching those players at future events. We already have players accusing POP of being too quick to deactivate players and here is a proposal to assume that players are dishonest and should be considered as guilty first and need to prove their innocence rather than the other way around. Given the disputed circumstances there is no way of proving your innocence.

By going for a warning I wont catch the guilty first time, but I wont penalise the honest majority who makes an innocent mistake either. A big penalty like a game loss requires certainty. So get em on the second occasion. Note that this applies to the honest mistake too: procedural errors do add up.

 

[Lawman]

NoPoke makes a good point about actually catching someone in the act of "faking" a mulligan to get rid of a bad hand. You have caught them CHEATING and they can be DQ'd on the spot. No need to go game loss. Warnings may be the way to go if it is player A vs player B's word only w/o a witness. (Which I think most of us have stated would be appropriate) A solution proposed by Ditto I believe, would require the mulliganing player to call over a staff member to verify they showed the hand to the opponent.

Keith

 

[Ditto]

An honest player has a muligan and believes that they showed it to their opponent. They then realise that the opponent didn't see the mulligan. Maybe they flashed the cards too quickly.

Game Loss ? I hope not!

An honest player won't have this problem, they will make sure their opponent sees and if the opponent is dishonest and still tries to dispute it then it would end up Warning for both, since the honest player will say they did and the dishonest one will say that they didn't.

Now if a player actually does forget to show a mulligan (something that has been part of the rules since the begining of the game), then by the penalty guidelines it should be a Game Loss. The opponent who didn't get to see the hand doesn't know whether the mulliganing player is honest or not, so it should still stand Game Loss.

What's the difference between this and later in the game shuffling your hand in? The player that shuffled their hand in could have done it accidentally or could have done it on purpose, either way, it's still a Game Loss.

-------------------------------

An honest player believes that they have a mulligan and shows then shuffles away. Opponent says hey you had a fossil/ or I saw a basic. The honest player is now uncertain

Game Loss? Again I hope not.

Most players check and double check before performing a mulligan, so a player should be pretty certain in what they have (usually they are able to even name off all the cards in their hand). If the player is uncertain enough that they feel they might have had a basic of some sort and (being the honest player that you are describing) says that "oh yeah, I forgot fossils were basics" or something like that, then it DOES warrent a Game Loss. The player shuffled their hand in without being allowed to by the rules, gamestate is broken. The player should've been more careful.

Just because it was an accident doesn't mean anything. Ask players at Nationals (US) or Worlds who accidently shuffled their hand in mid game if they got cut any slack because it was an accident. I'm sure the answer is no.

------------------

As a judge you see a player has a rubbish openning hand. All seven cards are examined by the player. Instead of placing a basic they hide the card and attempt a flash and mulligan claim. (Hey the game is lost anyway! so might as well try it on)

Game Loss? I hope not.

I'm assuming that you mean you hope it's a DQ not a Game Loss, or were you just leading up to the next few paragraphs?

---------------------------

Which just leaves the dishonest player, and a disputed mulligan, which no one else saw. this breaks down several ways...

1) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a cheap win if the penalty is a game loss.

Maybe I'm not following, so let me say what I think this is saying. The player with a bad hand but has a basic, waits for his opponent to say that he's mulliganing and to show their cards, and then calls a judge over saying that his opponent didn't show in order get a win?

If that is correct, then I'm pretty sure the player that mulliganed and did show would dispute it which would be Warnings to both.

2) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a fake mulligan so they both draw seven.

3) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent doesn't mulligan. So a fake muligan is attempted.

1) Is only worth trying if the penalty is a game loss.
2) and 3) both end up with he said she said.

Having a game loss penalty as the starting point allows more options to cheat not fewer!

As I said, they all end up with he said she said, no extra benefit to the dishonest player than there has been in the past.

===============

Word will get around between the PTOs of any player who picks up a warning for a disputed muligan procedural error. Expect a judge to be watching those players at future events. We already have players accusing POP of being too quick to deactivate players and here is a proposal to assume that players are dishonest and should be considered as guilty first and need to prove their innocence rather than the other way around. Given the disputed circumstances there is no way of proving your innocence.

By going for a warning I wont catch the guilty first time, but I wont penalise the honest majority who makes an innocent mistake either. A big penalty like a game loss requires certainty. So get em on the second occasion. Note that this applies to the honest mistake too: procedural errors do add up.

I'm not saying they are guilty until proven innocent. If they dispute, it will be Warnings to both, (so you will get them on the second time just like normal) but say both players in the match next to them saw a player shuffle in without showing. Now we have something more to go off of. Or say a staff member saw it but that staff is not actually a judge so they can't officially hand out penalties. Now, with those last two sentences in mind, I still think that (other than maybe the word of the staff member) the player who was playing against the dishonest player should be the one to bring it up to the judge, not asked the question "did he shuffle with out showing you?" since then they might be tempted to say yes even if the hand was shown.

Overall, this will not hurt the honest player anymore than the rules have in the past (read: Nats (US) and Worlds), and whether we think that is is appropriate or not for a Game Loss to be the penalty, that is where PUI has put it in their guidelines, that shuffling in a hand without a cause is a Game Loss.