What do people think about the London Mulligan? Better or worse for EDH than the Vancouver Mulligan? Than the "Commander Mulligan?"

London Mulligan:

When you mulligan for the Nth time, you draw seven cards, then put N cards on the bottom of your library in any order.

Vancouver Mulligan:

To perform a Vancouver mulligan, the player returns their hand to their library, then draws a hand of one fewer card. Once all players keep their opening hands, each player with fewer cards than their starting hand size may scry 1.

Multiplayer Bonus:

In games with more than two players, the first mulligan for each player is "free". For the first mulligan only, players draw as many cards as their starting hand size. Subsequent mulligans consist of one fewer card each time, as usual.

Commander Mulligan:

"Free" mulligans even in games with only two players, with shuffling reduced by setting aside unwanted hands, rather than shuffling in each one, until after a hand is kept.

How many Grenzo, Dungeon Warden-style effects are there that care about the bottom of your library?

Grenzo, Dungeon Warden and Cellar Door seem to be the only ones that care about the cards on the bottom. Everything else seems to put stuff on the bottom (with one Nicol Bolas exiling everything but the bottom card.)

I like London (the city). And the mulligan.

One should shuffle once after keeping to avoid that kind of abuse. Maybe Scry 1 after shuffling...

I think it'll be great. It's more punitive than the Gis, and that one generally works out fine.

Are you (the RC) at all worried about the potential for abuse? Is this something you are discussing or will discuss with the CAG? If it seems like it in fact creates a problem if/when it is implemented, is changing the mulligan rule for Commander something that is within your ability still?

Frankly, for Commander, free mulligans (as many as are needed, which rarely ever exceeds 2) are fine as long as a player isn't fishing for a godhand. To get around this, in my usual group; I like to show hands that I can't keep and let my playmates ask questions to encourage them to do the same. It isn't perfect, but I always want my group to have every player come online and be relevant in a game. From my experience with competitive formats, shaky 6s are must keeps, and any 5 with 2 lands is a must keep. Fighting out of that hole is harder when your deck is less predictable.

I think the principal behind London Mulligan is cool, but it seems more appropriate for games like Planechase or Archenemy than Commander. The differences in deck construction create a small, but not negligible additional amount of variance which encourage loose mulligan rules (like Partial Paris) and require some amount of faith that the other players can obey an honor system.

@Cryogen-
Mulligan rules change by playgroup. In general, enforcement is simply refusing to play with anyone who would exploit an honor system. But that's also poor form, since we should only be willing to play EDH with people we would allow to shuffle our decks.

But thats the point : There has to be a baseline Mulligan system. Free till you have a playable hand and honor system do not work for the basic rule.

What's the logic behind putting the cards on the bottom instead of shuffling them in?

Is it to preserve clock time in timed matches?

I'm sure we will discuss it, but I'm not worried about potential for abuse. If people feel the need to abuse it, they probably ignore the rest of the social contract too.

Can we change it? Sure. If it turns out to be uniquely ill-suited for Commander we can write new rules. But, as I said, we already have a much-in-use mulligan that's more generous than that, and we're likely to favor a direction that lets people get a reasonable start.

It isn't the overt abuse that I am worried about, more the subtle subconscious abuse, such as being more willing to mulligan since you get to see more cards, and how that could affect the early game.

I just read Sheldon's answer in his SCG article, so it sounds like you guys are going to be pretty proactive in keeping an eye on the LM while not actually rushing to do anything beyond observing.

This sums up my feelings about this. I fully support the change to the London mulligan as the new oficial mulligan for Commander. People who become genuinely screwed with their starting hands will have better chances to at least play the game if, for example, they dump two nonland cards to the bottom of the library while keeping a five-card hand with three lands in it. As for the potential to abuse, well, the format was not designed with that in mind, so abusers and trolls will just continue abusing and trolling, now a little better than before. The London mulligan will leave the crowd who endorse the social contract happier by having better chances to not get mana screwed, and the rest is history. As for the potential abuse with Grenzo, remember that you still need to keep some lands in order to cast it, he's still vulnerable to removal just like everyone else, and now you can't tutor if you wish to maintain the order of the bottom cards. Yes, he will become a little bit better with the London mulligan, but Grenzo was hardly a tier 1 commander, and manipulating an extra two or three cards to the bottom of the library will hardly change that.

Is london mull becoming the new standard for sanctioned play?

No, they're just experimenting with it in one tournament at this point. It might become a standard or might not.

I like the sound of it. Kind of hoping they do make it a thing. I play a lot of limited, and it's often the kiss of death if you have to mull, especially if you have to do it more than once. This seems like it could make your 5 and less card hands a lot more viable.