Mulligan Charade - Who Shows First?

[NoPoke]

I don's see the flaw because I don't see a stalemate. Both players are expected to decide what they are going to do after drawing their opening hand. Neither player is entitled to delay that decision till after the opponent has made their decision clear. The only way to get a stalemate is to write into the rules a common practice that is incorrect: where one player does wait for the other.

 

[Yoshi-]

He might be like you and Ness and seek to influence their opponents decisions on how to start by falsely putting down a non-basic at the start of a game before declaring mulligan in order to disallow the opponent from gaining an insight into his deck that they should rightfully have.

But he still gets the inside of the deck, he just gets it AFTER he played down his pokemon? And this is how it should be, both people should put down their basic, unknowing if their opponent will mulli and then, AFTERWARDS, mulligans should be handled.

And Ness solution does exactly this, it either stops your opponent from getting an advantage by waiting til you declare mulligan or both players to stare at each other for 2 minutes

I dont get whats supposed to be ubious about that.


IMO a player should declare his starter before mulligans, that could influence his decision, are done.
Ness solution solves this problem perfectly

 

[ryanvergel]

And Ness solution does exactly this, it either stops your opponent from getting an advantage by waiting til you declare mulligan or both players to stare at each other for 2 minutes

Where have you shown that the advantage that the opponent receives was not intended in the structure of the rules?

By disallowing that advantage to the opponent by misrepresenting yourself and doing something against the rules (putting a non-basic pokemon down as a starter- the rules say you can ONLY PUT DOWN A BASIC AS A STARTER) it is a dubious action. It is worse because it has the intention of affecting the decisions of your opponent on false pretenses.

This entire argument has a foundational premise that the rules ought to not privilege the person who sees the mulligan and gets more information- where did you prove that premise at, exactly?

Invalid argument stemming from assumed premises.

All I have seen are people ASSUME that the "advantage" gained by the opponent if you mulligan is UNFAIR, undeserved, improper, etc. Where did this assumption stem from? Because you simply don't want to give any advantage away? I don't think the desires of the competitive player to maintain as much secrecy as possible justifies the assumption that the advantage to the opponent is somehow fundamentally unfair and the rules should accommodate or eliminate such an unfairness.

 

[Yoshi-]

Because there is no other way to do it. We need a clear order, the other possibility would be that both players cant setup until they both have a basic pkmn. This would work out as well I guess.
Either both players play down a basic pkmn, fake or not, and once both players choose their actives, mulligans get resolved. OR Both players confirm they have a basic, then mulliganz get handled and then both players choose their active. The first one seems more logic to me but either goes I guess

 

[PokePop]

I just have a question that's been bothering me.
The current process has been in effect for about 6+ years now, since late 2003.
Why has this not been brought up as a big issue before?

 

[Lawman]

Just bc the "pro" players in the Midwest do this does NOT make it right. There is a basic rule (pun intended) that is being neglected by the angle shooters here. Yes, I said angle shooters. Rob, you may think this isnt an "angle", but it is. Doesnt matter if you, Ness, Chuck, Joe Nobody does this. If Yamato did this and was caught by a judge, he would be penalized. Simple as that. The rules say the players play a basic or fossil as their starter, face down, to show that you have a starter. Not to get your oppo to lay their's down faster or to falsely show a mully. If you have a mully, wait briefly and if the oppo doesnt lay down a starter, simply ask if they have a mully. If you both have mully, resolve it quickly. If they dont have a mully, ask them to make a choice soon pls (one can also add bc you have a mully.) Solution given.

This is not a huge issue. I find it somewhat strange that you have 'Pop tell you if could be a GL or DQ if you do this action and you still question it? He is on the rules team. I hate to toot my own horn, but I have judged all over and been on Nats and Worlds staff multiple times, even HJ'ing one time at Nats in JRs. I immediately called the action as bad.

As 'Pop said....we have had this set up mech since 2003 and NOW it comes up?

@Jokerboi: I appreciate the honesty, but do you really think that making this statement wouldnt put a bullseye on ya at your tourneys??

@Yoshi: We have a clear rule in place. You draw the top 7 cards from your deck. You check for basics. You play one do, if you have one. This is set up folks! If you get a junk start, if will be difficult anyway. If you have a good start, you have a chance. Why does it matter if the oppo gets the knowledge that you have a mully? You still get to shuffle up (after showing hand) and your oppo doesnt see your hand until they place their active and set out their prizes. If you show earlier than that, that is your fault.

Keith

 

[toxictaipan]

We also probably need more clarification on what a dubious game action is. Like you pointed out in the bluffing thread, this situation (the solution) also kind of comes down to interpreting that clause.

There is definitely a problem- there should be some direction or guidance, even if its arbitrary, as to whom should do the action first so that a situation where both players wanting to get the most advantage, legally, within the rules, are not put into a stalemate.

More rules, plz!

The person who draws seven cards from their deck FIRST places their active basic Pokemon FIRST.

Okay? Okay.

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

@Jokerboi: I appreciate the honesty, but do you really think that making this statement wouldnt put a bullseye on ya at your tourneys??

I'm going to say two things:
1. If he plays clean now, and he's known to play clean, then he's reformed, and let bygones be bygones.
2. At least he has the stones to admit to what he did AND admit that what he did is wrong.

 

[ColdCoates90]

The person who draws seven cards from their deck FIRST places their active basic Pokemon FIRST.

Okay? Okay.

What if both players drew at the same time?

Either way I've never thought of mulligans in this way but there is a definite advantage in knowing whether or not your opponent is about to mulligan.

Only fair way I can see this is flipping a coin/rolling a die to determines who goes first before everyone draws their cards. The person going first reveals whether or not they have any basics,effectively giving player 2 a slight advantage, and then player 2 does the same.

Playing a fake card down is rather shady imo.

 

[NoPoke]

The most frustrating part of this is the denial of any problem part. I can live with the disagreement on the solution.

Well as I'm one of those that does not see a problem with following the existing procedure I'd certainly like to know why it is flawed.

A and B are playing and both are suspicious types who are also seeking to maximise their advantage by any means.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B sit their waiting for their opponent to do something.

This is your stalemate yet it ignores that neither A nor B is allowed to wait indefinately. Both A and B have to be deciding what they are going to do based upon their opening hands.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B decide what they are going to do based upon their opening hand.
A and B sit their waiting for their opponent to do something.

Another stalemate yet once more this is incorrect. As having made their decision neither player is allowed to waste the clock.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B decide what they are going to do based upon their opening hand.
After a brief pause to ensure B has had sufficient thinking time A asks B if B is ready.
B can say "not yet" but the slow play clock is now ticking for B alone!

B has to get off the pot! There is no stalemate and A has revealed nothing about his hand.
A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B decide what they are going to do based upon their opening hand.
After a brief pause to ensure B has had sufficient thinking time A asks B if B is ready.
B says Yes.

so they sit there once more when both have declared that they know what they are going to do? Not if they want to avoid penalties they don't: so once again there is no stalemate.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B decide what they are going to do based upon their opening hand.
After a brief pause to ensure B has had sufficient thinking time A asks B if B is ready.
B says Yes.
A and B being suspicious types agree to place their actives face down at the same time.
most games they have basics and setup continues. However...
A has a mulligan and when B moves to place his already decided card face down in the active spot A shows the mulligan.

B cannot change his mind as to what to start with. A cannot be accused of dubious practice.

I don't see the problem.

 

[Yoshi-]

A and B are playing and both suspicious types seeking to maximise advantage by any means.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B sit their waiting for their opponent to do something.

This is your stalemate yet it ignores that neither A nor B is allowed to wait indefinately. Both A and B have to be deciding what they are going to do based upon their opening hands.


And if both players wait for their opponent to do the first move? If a player with a mulligan could just lay down something they could just go on. Its like being blindfolded in the beginning, when you setup your opponent will have one basic pkmn, thats the situation, everything else gets resolved afterwards

 

[NoPoke]

I've been editing to make it clear that there is no stalemate. The clock is ticking for both of them or one of them at all times.

Yoshi-, the reason you are not allowed to place down any card as the starting basic is that it is not in the rules. The arguement from SLOW DECK is that the existing procedure is flawed and thus needs to be changed. I believe that arguement is incorrect. Sure placing down any card to indicate a mulligan would work but as the existing procedure also works why change it?

 

[billbilski]

Just bc the "pro" players in the Midwest do this does NOT make it right. There is a basic rule (pun intended) that is being neglected by the angle shooters here. Yes, I said angle shooters. Rob, you may think this isnt an "angle", but it is. Doesnt matter if you, Ness, Chuck, Joe Nobody does this. If Yamato did this and was caught by a judge, he would be penalized. Simple as that. The rules say the players play a basic or fossil as their starter, face down, to show that you have a starter. Not to get your oppo to lay their's down faster or to falsely show a mully. If you have a mully, wait briefly and if the oppo doesnt lay down a starter, simply ask if they have a mully. If you both have mully, resolve it quickly. If they dont have a mully, ask them to make a choice soon pls (one can also add bc you have a mully.) Solution given.

This is not a huge issue. I find it somewhat strange that you have 'Pop tell you if could be a GL or DQ if you do this action and you still question it? He is on the rules team. I hate to toot my own horn, but I have judged all over and been on Nats and Worlds staff multiple times, even HJ'ing one time at Nats in JRs. I immediately called the action as bad.

As 'Pop said....we have had this set up mech since 2003 and NOW it comes up?

Keith

Keith, unlike some of the examples in the bluffing thread(lying about the contents of your hand in which your opponent has no right to know for example), I DO understand that this is TECHNICALLY improper action - I can find no logical argument to deny this. Please understand that the OP is concerned that game play that has been going on for over 5 years at every level, and all of a sudden was clearly stated by judges such as yourself as punishable actions in a gym thread. There has been no recognition that perhaps a disconnect between what is acceptable(honest interpretation and hardly poor spirit of the game) by players themselves and those judging exists(judges to judges as well). Rules are Rules, but interpreting and passing judgement on those rules requires a certain finesse. If you have played in this manner with absolutely no resistance EVER and a judge gives anything other than a warning - I call this dubious. Instead of ruling on a "grey" area like this with a very strict interpretation, It seems to me in the best interest of the game to educate, inform and discuss SOLUTIONS to these obvious disconnects.... As I said in the bluffing thread - if I was penalized for pretending to not draw into something I actually did get during a game - I would probably lose it. If this was announced by every judge around the country before tournaments in an attempt to educated us and then followed up by a warning I would be extremely compliant with no bad feelings. It took me FOREVER to adapt to playing as a "righty". These kind of changes would be just as challenging.. Accept the disconnect - discuss - find solutions - educate!

 

[NoPoke]

yes it might be dubious but it could be innocent too. As the "dubious" practice is so close to no harm no foul it should pick up a minor procedural error as the penalty.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I think this discussion is a very positive one. Scott, I am not sure Keith would have out of the blue Game Loss someone for this mechanic or not, rather than promoting proper mechanics on this thread. And even if we disagree on methods, we all do want to have proper and consistent play.

A and B draw their opening hands.
A and B decide what they are going to do based upon their opening hand.
After a brief pause to ensure B has had sufficient thinking time A asks B if B is ready.
B says Yes.
A and B being suspicious types agree to place their actives face down at the same time.
most games they have basics and setup continues. However...
A has a mulligan and when B moves to place his already decided card face down in the active spot A shows the mulligan.

B cannot change his mind as to what to start with. A cannot be accused of dubious practice.

I don't see the problem.

I have read through Ian's solution, which is essentially to communicate to your opponent that you are ready to declare a basic or a mulligan, and "Are they ready to declare." Then to declare yourselves simultaneously. I have no problems with Ian's solution of communicating to have a simultaneous declaration of starting pokemon and mulligan.

I do think the false starter does the same thing, but it is albeit NOT defined as a functionally proper mechanic of the game. And this game folks do need to maintain proper form and mechanics to keep the game clean in terms of mechanics. The word Dubious strikes me as wrong, because of all the players (AND THERE ARE MANY) that used this mechanic, Dubious, Cheating, Rule Lawyering isn't what they see themselves as. And to think that the CHEAP players out there WOULD, and they WOULD call a judge and say "Keith..... This player showed a False Starter instead of Mulligan, doesn't he get a Game Loss for DUBIOUS game Actions. "

Does anyone have a problem with the procedure that No Poke has advanced? (Asking Q, "I am ready to declare my starter or mulligan, Are you ready to declare your starter or mulligan?") Again, most of the world aren't "suspicious types" and won't bother with this mechanic, but for us deep thinking types that try not to give up information.... we would be more comfortable doing it this way.

 

[Lawman]

SLOW DECK: I stated that A can ask B, are you ready? It is really quite simple. But, to falsely show that you have a basic when you dont DOES influence how B MAY set up.

@Billiski: I hope no one "forced" you to play "righty" if you are left handed. I have always been of the mindset that as long as the deck is on one side and the prizes on the oppo side and I can clearly see this, I'm OK with that. Many many other judges agree with this also.

Keith

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I'm going to say two things:
1. If he plays clean now, and he's known to play clean, then he's reformed, and let bygones be bygones.
2. At least he has the stones to admit to what he did AND admit that what he did is wrong.

I agree with that. Only thing I also pointed out is that he may be looked at differently for awhile since this "confession" only came out this week. As an analogy to what I do for a living....I am a criminal defense atty. Client A was charged and admits to shoplifting a few times a few yrs ago at Wal-Mart. Although he has finished his probation and has no more thefts for the last 2-3 yrs, dontcha think loss prevention officers at Wal-Mart are still going to watch him when he comes in????

Keith

 

[toxictaipan]

What if both players drew at the same time?

Flip a coin, of course.

 

[SLOW DECK]

Keith, I know you have said this, some of us are Thick headed before we come around.

I personally don't see a difference ... OTHER THAN STRICT MECHANICS .....
Without speaking or asking any questions, having place a card as your starter,
+ If that card is a basic, it is your basic starting pokemon.
+ If that card isn't a basic, you have a mulligan and will be showing as soon as player B declares their starter.

OTHER THAN STRICT MECHANICS.....Is there a difference in:
+ Q? "Are you ready to declare your mulligan or starter?"
+ And simultaneiously either put down a basic pokemon card or declare a mulligan.

That is what our judges here is suggesting would be proper. If this is the best solution for the starting mechanic we have to follow. Because this acheives order for fair play, and does comprimise dubious actions on the placement of cards to be achieved then so be it. We will play it this way, if it is the best way of prereleasing game information to our opponents.

Now, because I am a distrustful person in nature(pity me), I do know that a the verbal mechanic of having us saying we are ready to declare my start/mulligan could lead to the player physically placing one card in hand and me saying I have a mulligan, and my opponent saying oops, I meant to pick this one. (And they could be honestly saying this or not.) I didn't take my fingers off of it is accepted mechanic in this game isn't it?. The poor untrusting souls that is the midwest pokemon player group, figures that the only why to stop this potential injustice (lol, this is really funny) is by having a way of not revealing a mulligan until there is a unchangeable declaration of there starter. (BTW, how many bench pokemon is something that we generally can add and do add after the starting pokemon has been declared.)

 

[NoPoke]

There is a small difference.

Place a false starter and your opponent can reasonably be expected to believe that you will not mulligan. They are entitled to believe such because that is the implication from following the rule book.

Don't get me started on the myriad ways for miss-use of the non-existing rule about finger-on = not played!

 

[SLOW DECK]

Starting at the top. Here is an alternative questions that is at the heart of this issue. If the answer is YES, then the FALSE starter mechanic isn't an issue and there would be any reason to do it.

QUESTION1 : CAN YOU CHANGE YOUR STARTING POKEMON IF YOUR OPPONENT HAS A MULLIGAN. (BUT BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR MULLIGAN CARD).

QUESTION2 : DO YOU HAVE TO DECLARE A MULLIGAN BEFORE YOUR OPPONENT PLAYS A BASIC POKEMON?

Hey, if the answer to this question is YES. (Yes the rules don't state this.... but if it did... ) Then there is NO debate, We have clear rules of play, that doesn't involved unfair release of information.. By REQUIRING a mulligan declaration before a Basics are played, I am happy, the rules aren't BROKEN. EVERYONE PLAYS FAIRS, AND PLAYERS HAVE NO REASON TO DELAY THE SET UP.

Thus if the game was
-Draw 7 cards,
-Declare if you have a mulligan or not... Show if you do.
-If no mulligan, then you place a starting pokemon.
-Deal out prizes, if your opponent had a mulligan you may draw extra card.
-You may place extra bench pokemon
- Flip a coin to see who starts.

That would not be a broken game state. (Other than who places there bench pokemon first!! LOL)