This happened to me at a tournament I was playing in the other day, and, as I was not a Judge at the event I didn't step in, and also the event was Regular and the player who was doing it seemed to be a newer player so I didn't want to make a fuss without knowing exactly that I was right, so I said nothing at the time. I did, however, want to ask about it here:

We agree that pile counting one's deck is not randomization, and that the only purpose of pile counting is to verify the number of cards in the deck. The situation is: Player pile counts his deck and counts only 56 cards. He takes 4 cards from his sideboard (this is after game 1) and shuffles them into his deck. Should the player be allowed to pile count again to verify that his deck now contains 60 cards as it is supposed to before presenting?

Argument for: The player should be able to verify that his deck is legal, because if he is not allowed to then a watchful opponent could stick him with it when he presents his deck, with little to no recourse for the player, if the player makes a mistake.

Argument against: In addition to the usual arguments about pile counting too much, when you pile count your deck you should know how many cards are in it and how many cards to add. Therefore, adding the correct number of cards “should not” be such a monumental task to require recounting.

Thoughts?

There's no reason you can't double check if you miscounted. Just mention that the number is off and you need to double check.

Which is one reason I dislike people counting into 7 piles - if you count into 3 or 6 or 10 or 5 piles, each pile has a guaranteed amount. If you count into 7 you have to count every pile then do the math on if that's the correct number because some piles will have 8, some will have 9.

In a miscount situation with a “good” number of piles you count to 20 or 10 or 6 or 12 (respectively to above) and then repeat on the next pile.

With 7 piles you have to count to 8 or 9 and then do the math to make sure you got the right number of 8s (3) and the right number of 9s (4).

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Should the player be allowed to pile count again to verify that his deck now contains 60 cards as it is supposed to before presenting?
Thoughts?

There was an exhaustively long thread on the Dallas/Fort Worth Magic Players Facebook page about these kinds of questions; my answer here will be the same as it was to the DFW players.

Approximate answer to DFW thread: You're overthinking it. The point of this shift in policy is to reduce and limit the number of unreasonable and unnecessary pile counts in tournaments. Encountering an error while pile counting sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to recount, though, so, by all means, count again!

Players then asked whether they should call a judge to inform them that a recount is pending. I advised local players that this was unnecessary, and that informing one's opponent of the recount and the reason for it was perfectly fine. We're trying to save tournament time, not slow it down further by adding a judge call to the mix.

I did add the caveat that, if a player found him- or herself “needing a recount” too often (disguising that he or she really just doesn't want to break an old habit), he or she should expect that a talk with a judge about knocking that off would be on the horizon!

I'm split on whether I'd allow this.
It may be useful to remind the player that they can count the deck without pile-counting it (in a similar fashion to mid-game asking “how many cards are in your library?”).

But even a normal count is effectively a 1-pile shuffle… ;-)

Dominick: only if they're changing the order of their deck as they count
it, which is not really advisable :)

All things considered, since the pile count is being used to verify deck
legality, if it comes out that the deck is missing cards, I would probably
allow another count. After all, if the player knows they only get one pile
count, how much longer does that pile count take as they verify and
re-verify that their math is right?

I do appreciate people's efforts to appear above-board by piling in 7s or
other weird numbers that don't break down evenly, even though
mathematically, it makes little difference. I've been recommending a
2-pile count. Then your deck ends up in two nice piles to riffle together
:)

When I pile (which is not often) I pile in 8s, because 60 is 4 (mod 8) and that's what I've gotten used to: at the end of my pile I should have 4 extra cards, and if I don't then something is amiss.

Just saying :p

I don't see a reason for second pile-shuffling. Since you did it once and found out that 4 cards were missing, pile-shuffling it again after adding exactly 4 cards has no use. You know that deck had 56 cards, you know that you added 4 cards in, so this, naturally, is verification, that deck has exactly 60 cards.
Of course, the case could be made if he/she miscounted the 4 cards, which is really unlikely.

I like John's reply here. It sums up a lot of my thoughts.

If a player feels the need to recheck after adding cards (confirming they got it right) I'll certainly allow it.

This will rarely happen and is fine to me when it does.

I just wish we could stop calling it a “pile shuffle” and change the MTR's wording to “pile count”. The whole point is that it's not a functional shuffle, so every time a judge calls it a “shuffle” it adds to the confusion. It's much easier to explain to players that they shouldn't count twice in a row for no reason.

I would say no, there's no reasonable need for a second pile shuffle. What's so hard about picking up the deck face-down and actually COUNTING out the 60 cards? It takes like a quarter of the time pile shuffling would and it's far more accurate. If I drop a card while shuffling I'll do this quickly just to make sure I got them all, then continue shuffling and present.

I don't think pile counting into multiple piles takes significantly longer than counting a single pile, and I don't believe it is necessarily more accurate. In fact, using multiple piles has the added benefit of providing an automatic check on your count at the end (in case, say, two cards stuck together, or you were interrupted in your count). Sometimes counting to 60 is, in fact, hard.

To me, I translate pile shuffle into “counting deck”. So saying they can't pile shuffle but they can count makes little sense to me.

Intent matters somewhat to me though. If they wanna pile because of habit, not verification, I'd educate :).

Otherwise: sure, they can count.

Rob, a seven card pile should end with your last ‘batch’ only consisting of four cards (if you're playing a sixty card deck). An uneven count pile count is, I assume, an artifact from the days pile shuffling was allowed as a randomization method, and I prefer to cling to it, I guess as I'm used to it and it was shown to have a better randomization than a six or five card pile shuffle.

Originally posted by Kenneth Pletinckx:

a seven card pile … was shown to have a better randomization than a six or five card pile shuffle

This makes me sad.