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.

And what do you do if one of the player want to shuffle and the other not?

@ Scott:

I was under the impression that GPE's occurred during games, TE's were a result of making a mistake with tournament rules and procedures, etc. Given that they're getting ready for a game, and not actually in a game, how can a GPE be given without a game to go along with it?

I see alot of trouble in those kind of deckchecks where a judge would tell me im not allowed to shuffle and verify..

Now the questions rises, why would a judge tell me not to shuffle after a deck check?

Now the questions rises, why would a judge tell me not to shuffle after a deck check?

Because it's what we do when we use the Polish method to deck check as the deck is in the exact same order before and after deck check. This method save 3 min (the time extension given to player to shuffle thoroughly) in each deck check.

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

I was under the impression that GPE's occurred during games, TE's were a result of making a mistake with tournament rules and procedures, etc. Given that they're getting ready for a game, and not actually in a game, how can a GPE be given without a game to go along with it?

Ah, yes, good point! So, there really isn't an infraction that's a *good* match; we can assess Unsporting Conduct - Minor (“fails to follow the request of a tournament official”), but that may seem petty, even draconian, to the player.

Some of the concerns I see raised in this thread suggest a lack of familiarity with this new “Polish deck check” method; I urge you to search the forums and read up on it; I'll get you started with this link. I'll wait right here while you review that…

OK, now you'll understand - the deck is maintained *exactly* as it was when presented to the opponent for shuffling. The time used to get, check, and return the deck is added to the match - but not the extra 3 minutes we add for shuffling, as there's no extra shuffling needed. The opponent, however, still shuffles the deck, as usual.

If the concerns are a lack of trust in the judges performing that task, then we have other issues.

d:^D

Originally posted by Pascal Gemis:

Because it's what we do when we use the Polish method to deck check as the deck is in the exact same order before and after deck check. This method save 3 min (the time extension given to player to shuffle thoroughly) in each deck check.

Ah, well then i'm with the OP here, i would ALWAYS want to count my deck and shuffle.

Judges can easely lose cards on the way to the table..

I think the top item with the Polish Deck Check method is going to be
re-training the players. Right now, players are used to always being told
to thoroughly shuffle their decks and that the deck is sorted out. For
players who have been doing this for a while, to all of a sudden hear a
judge tell them NOT to shuffle may be very odd and unusual to them.
They're just not used to it. Plus it is possible that they have a friend
that knows a guy that has a friend that knows a guy that got a game loss 5
years ago because they got deck checked and the judge only brought back 58
cards and they didn't catch it.

I fully intend on trying this method in the near future. When I get back
to the table, I was planning on asking the players to quickly count their
decks and then shuffle and present like they just fetched a fetch land (a
few quick riffles, 10-15 secs). As players get more used to the process,
then they'll understand what's going on and be much more receptive and they
may be more comfortable with not shuffling. We still are giving a shorter
extension for count and shuffle (maybe adding 1 minute instead of adding 3
minutes) and getting things moving faster.

Jason Daniels

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

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.

If the player who won Game 1 wants to count and shuffle, and the player who lost the game wants to get moving, does that change your answer? Assume the player is legitimately concerned about missing cards, not stalling.

Originally posted by Jason Daniels:

I fully intend on trying this method in the near future. When I get back
to the table, I was planning on asking the players to quickly count their
decks and then shuffle and present like they just fetched a fetch land (a
few quick riffles, 10-15 secs). As players get more used to the process,
then they'll understand what's going on and be much more receptive and they
may be more comfortable with not shuffling. We still are giving a shorter
extension for count and shuffle (maybe adding 1 minute instead of adding 3
minutes) and getting things moving faster.

so 1 pileshuffle should do the same? counting and shuffling in one step.
Just timed myself, took me 30 secs for 1 pileshuffle.
So instead of 3 minutes we can go with 30 secs, or 1 min for not so experianced players…

Saves time and everyone is happy ;)

Except pile “shuffling” isn't a valid form of shuffling

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Except pile “shuffling” isn't a valid form of shuffling

True, but if the deck is randomized anyway if it gets back whats the harm?

Players can count there deck while doing so and if you see some random cards while the judge gives you your deck back then this problem is also gone.
(Everyone knows if you are at a store where there is not much space dealing with giving the deck back can be a bit of a hussle, mistakes happen, player may see the bottom of the deck…)

If you see any card before or during pile shuffling you have to do another form of shuffling.

For example: if you see the bottom card once you have piled shuffle the bottom card will be the top card of the last pile will be the bottom card. This means you know the position of that card, if you so wished you could make sure that pile is the top one, yes this would be unlikely but why offer temptation?

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

True, but if the deck is randomized anyway if it gets back whats the harm?

because the deck is not random if one card is known and the known card is still known after 1 or a million pile counts.

If I have a 60 card deck and I know the last card is X and I do a 7 pile count the topmost card on pile 4 will always be card X and depending on my willingness to have it sooner or later I can position it in my deck to be more or less likly on the top or bottom after the cut by my opponent.

You can read more about pile counting here http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

I was under the impression that GPE's occurred during games, TE's were a result of making a mistake with tournament rules and procedures, etc. Given that they're getting ready for a game, and not actually in a game, how can a GPE be given without a game to go along with it?

Ah, yes, good point! So, there really isn't an infraction that's a *good* match; we can assess Unsporting Conduct - Minor (“fails to follow the request of a tournament official”), but that may seem petty, even draconian, to the player.

This post confused me. When I accidentally reveal a card while shuffling opponents deck during pre game procedure, the penalty is still LEC, right?

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

because the deck is not random if one card is known and the known card is still known after 1 or a million pile counts.

If I have a 60 card deck and I know the last card is X and I do a 7 pile count the topmost card on pile 4 will always be card X and depending on my willingness to have it sooner or later I can position it in my deck to be more or less likly on the top or bottom after the cut by my opponent.

You can read more about pile counting here http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/

Ah now i understand, yes ofc if you see the bottom card then you need to shuffle it better then just 1 pile shuffle.