So this situation happened to me as a player at GP Houston. I wanted to post this here as a subject for discussion because it seemed interesting.

I get deck checked at the beginning of Rd 3. Judge brings our decks back after a few minutes and talks to both of us. I had only written crumble instead of crumble to dust and my opponent had some sleeves that needed to be changed. He also mentioned that they used the Polish dc method (http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/21224/) and we wouldn't need to shuffle our decks and just begin the game.

I proceed to take my deck out of my box and present my sb. While separating the 2 I see the bottom card of my deck. I immediately tell the judge that is still standing there, “Judge I saw the bottom card of my deck.” Judge looks at me and says that is going to be LEC. I sit there for a second or two dumbfounded and say “I would like to appeal.”

The judge goes to find an appeals judge and comes back a minute later. They talk for a few seconds and the appeals judge introduces himself and ask me what had happened. He then rules that he is upholding the floor judges decision of LEC.

I mention to him when judges use the other DC methods that they inform you to shuffle very thoroughly and make sure all the contents of the deck are there. I asked him “Am I not allowed to verify my deck is complete? What if a card was lost between the time the judge took my deck and brought it back?”

After a few more seconds of discussion the appeals judge tells me he isn't going to give me a LEC penalty.

So after all of this I'm confused is this technically LEC or not?

Thanks!

As the appeals judge in question, I'm happy to address this.

Technically? Yes, it fits L@EC. You're not supposed to see the bottom card of your library, and you did.

After the discussion you and I had, I came to two conclusions:
1) the new DC procedure is not yet well-known to players, and the simple error would be too easy to commit just in the process of - as you were - removing the deck from the deck box. It could be argued that the judge contributed to this, and returning the deck outside the deck box would have avoided this. That's why I waived your L@EC *penalty*.
2) your additional point about not being able to pile count your deck, as part of the post-DC shuffle, and thus confirm that no cards were lost during the deck check, is a valid point that will be a discussion point for the L4+ judges.

d:^D

also it was my understanding of this method that it was primarily intended for limited events because the check method can take advantage of the typical realities of a limited deck.

Robert, there's a method called “The Australian method” that takes advantage of the characteristics of limited decks. This post was inspired by a different technique, called “The Polish method”, that - with practice - can reduce the time required to perform a complete check of a constructed deck.

I won't hijack this thread by delving into the details - there are plenty of other threads, about each method.

d:^D

Originally posted by Jason Crone:

He also mentioned that they used the Polish dc method (http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/21224/) and we wouldn't need to shuffle our decks and just begin the game.

Question - would it be wrong to choose to shuffle anyway? Or does it fall under:

Fails to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official.

I would advise people that if they are concerned that cards didn't make it
over that they can count the deck and look at the sideboard.

When doing the Polish DC, you should definitely not put the deck back into the deckbox when handing back the deck. Doing so will make it very probable that the player will see a card as he takes it out of the deckbox.

IMO I would have overturned the LEC as it is an error caused by the judge using a different method and putting the cards back in the deckbox. I would make the player shuffle, issue a time extension, but not give a penalty.

Originally posted by Edward Bell:

Question - would it be wrong to choose to shuffle anyway?

Shuffling your library when no effect instructs you to, would technically be a GRV; and yes, if a tournament official (the judge) tells you not to shuffle, then you've screwed that up, too.

Having said that, until players become accustomed to this new deck check method, we should be proactive to prevent such errors, and be forgiving when a well-intentioned player stumbles across some line…

d:^D

As one of the deck check judges, I agree that returning the decks in the deck boxes was a poor choice and I will make sure not to do so in the future using this method.

The quickest and easiest way I have found to circumvent the player shuffling their own deck (taking time that we have not granted them via extension to do so) is to return each player's deck to their opponent rather than to the player. The reasoning here is that the entire point of the Polish and Australian methods is to retain the order of the deck. Since we are swooping after each player has presented, then the next thing left to do in the pregame procedure is to have the opponent shuffle/cut, so the opponent should have possession of the deck to do so. By delivering the deck directly to the opponent, we avoid players wasting time by doing an unnecessary shuffle as it will be much harder for the player to shuffle a deck that is in their opponents' hands.

Sent from my iPad

I have always been under the impression that you always let the opponent shuffle the deck after using Polish/Australian deck check method.
After a regular check, the deck may be ordered and we allow the player 3 minutes to shuffle their own deck, then present it to the opponent (again, as they already presented right before the swoop). We shortcut that second shuffling and presenting, thus saving 3 minutes, but the movie continues where we cut in: the deck was just presented to the opponent, and the palyers have the right (obligation even!) to shuffle their opponent's deck.
So even if a player sees the bottom card of their own deck, it's not a huge deal: do a quick shuffle and present to the opponent.
Since when do we do checks like this and not allowing opponents to shuffle? I'm surprised, and not in a positive way, to be honest…

Dustin, I think you might be misinterpreting. The Polish method has us
circumventing having a player shuffle their OWN deck. The opponent still
has the right/obligation to shuffle/cut the deck, and we ideally skip right
to the part of the pregame procedure where they do so.

I just wanted to check if we are on the same page, or that there are differences in execution between Europe and the USA. Glad to hear we intend to do the same!

From a philosophy standpoint, I don't see how we can get around letting the player shuffle and verify the contents of his deck after any type of deck check used. What if a sb card is in the main deck after the dc that isn't supposed to be there. How do you fix that error when it shows up in a game? Bottom line the player is responsible for the 60 presented and should be able to verify it is correct after a deck check.

Originally posted by Jason Crone:

From a philosophy standpoint, I don't see how we can get around letting the player shuffle and verify the contents of his deck after any type of deck check used. What if a sb card is in the main deck after the dc that isn't supposed to be there. How do you fix that error when it shows up in a game? Bottom line the player is responsible for the 60 presented and should be able to verify it is correct after a deck check.

One answer to this (specifically for constructed play) is that skilled players pretty much always check/count their sideboard after a deck check. This verifies that there aren't any sideboard cards in the main deck.

That said, I ALWAYS return decks to their owner and inform them that the deck remains randomized and has not been sorted. I would never tell them they they aren't allowed to shuffle as I believe it supports the perception that the judge may be cheating. If their lack of trust in the judge costs them 3 minutes of their match time to make sure and shuffle, that is their choice. I'm just not going to give them an extension for it.

Originally posted by Jason Crone:

What if a sb card is in the main deck after the dc that isn't supposed to be there.

That can be checked easily, players are allowed to look at theyr sideboard and, if they really follow the MTR, will also present it to the opponent so they will catch if there are too many or less sideboard cards.

And even if the player in question draws a sideboard card in game one - there was a judge who checked the deck for shenanigans like that. I don't think that this happens that much (i'm brave enough to call it a corner case).