Hi there,
In a recent SCG IQ (Competitive) event there were two issues that occurred that brought up a few questions.
Issue 1
AP has obzedat, ghost council on the battlefield and is at the beginning his end step. The AP performs no actions and clearly states “Pass Turn”. Then states “at the EOT exile Obzedat”. The NAP calls for a judge stating the AP missed chance to activate the trigger by passing turn first. Would this be considered a missed trigger and the AP not be allowed to exile Obzedat per the NAP? or would it be Out-of-Order Sequencing and the trigger allowed?

Issue 2
There was a player using the double nickel shuffling technique for stacking cards. Once it was brought to our attention we confirmed that's what the player was doing. Basically the player would perform the double nickel, then split shuffle a couple times (cutting the deck in 1/2), and then present his deck. It's important to note the player is an experienced player and not a newbie.

I know this is a method of cheating but Eric Shukan's recent post has me questionable on how to deal with it now.
I had to defer to a lvl2 judge mentor about how to handle it. They suggested a deck check and then issue a warning for insufficient shuffling (if there was an obvious pattern, Land, spell, spell, Land etc..) and reminded me that it's also up to the opponent to make sure the deck as shuffled and randomized. Well a deck check of the player confirmed that his cards were in an obvious land spell spell pattern. So an warning was issued and he was sternly reminded to shuffle his deck thoroughly and that stack shuffling is not an effective method for shuffling.. Further observations during the tournament confirmed he was still using this shuffling technique, but when the player noticed he was being watched he would drop shuffle a few extra times…… moving on…. The player made it into the top 8. When we did the deck checks for the top 8, his deck was confirmed to be split in two sections. All land on top and then the rest were spells (perfect setup for performing the double nickel). We talked with all members of the top 8 and requested they shuffle well and to make certain they shuffle their opponents decks just as well before starting their matches.

So on to the question… ? It's obvious the player had the intent to cheat, so how as a judge can I prove this when it happens again? Give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not know, TELL him so he knows not to do that, and if they continue DQ them? I look forward to any suggestions or proper methods anyone may provide for dealing with this type of situation.

Thank you,
SB

1) In general I assume the player remembers the trigger until an action is performed that clearly indicates that they didn't. This doesn't seem to be the case here (I can't say for sure since I wasn't there). When a player passes their turn, they are advancing to the end of turn step and giving priority to the opponent (thats the default short cut). At that point the trigger could still be on the stack, so it's reasonable for that player to exile it at that point.

2) I'd prefer not to speculate on what ‘if’. However remember that you don't need 100% proof that a player is cheating to DQ them. If you are reasonably sure they are cheating then you can DQ them for that. So if you observe this player do this again in a future tournament, and you feel confident that player is cheating (and you are the HJ) then you don't have to give them a warning first.

As for the shuffling issue:
Once you determined what he was doing was illegal, you need to
determine if he was aware of what he was doing. If he is, then you
don't need to worry about him doing it again. You DQ him for
cheating. Intent isn't easy to determine, but that's the difference
between Insufficient Shuffling and Cheating.

Shawn

Hello!

Scenario 1 - For this one, what I would be looking for is if there was any
sort of pause between passing turn and acknowledging the Obzedat trigger.
If it's “Pass Turn. Exile Obzedat”, I'm ok with this. If it's “Pass
Turn…… Oh yeah, and Obzedat” I'm less ok with that. It's something that
you will have to use your judgment on to if the player forgot the trigger
or not.

Scenario 2 - At GP Miami, I was asked to watch a player that another judge
believed might be stacking his deck. I watched, noticed some minor things,
and ended up talking to the player about his shuffling, because it was
obviously insufficient. Upon sitting down and starting to talk to him, I
noticed that he was stacking his deck… spell, spell, land, spell, spell
land. I consulted with Scott Marshall before proceeding, but I asked him if
he always does that. He said “Yeah, is that bad?” and I felt that he was
being truthful that he did not know what he was doing was a bad thing. In
the end, he got a Warning for insufficient shuffling and a good education
of what to do with shuffling. I checked in on him later and he was
shuffling to my satisfaction in future rounds.

In your case, I would have at least asked some questions. Seeing what he's
doing with the double nickel is the start of an investigation. You have to
ask some questions of the player… “Why are you shuffling like this? Do
you always shuffle like this? Do you know that this is a method used for
stacking a deck?” and see what kind of answers you get. From there, one of
three things will happen. “Yeah boss, you caught me, I knew this was bad
and I was doing it anyways.” OR “Oh really? I didn't know that was a bad
thing, I do it all the time at FNM and no one ever said anything.” OR the
third option is he said something like #2 and you believe he's lieing to
you. In any case, investigating and asking the right questions is important
here instead of jumping to a conclusion either way just like any other
possible cheating situation. Go into it with an open mind and if you feel
it's innocent, then go ahead and educate and give that Warning for
Insufficient Shuffling. Also in your case, I would have questioned him
again after noticing that my education did not fix the problem. That is
showing a clear sign that you need to look more closely.

Good luck.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I heard my name, Mr. Fitzgerald, why have you summoned me?!? (LOL - I always wanted to be able to appear in a cloud of green smoke … or maybe burgundy smoke, to match the shirt?)

Seriously: the phrase that jumped out at me: “…when the player noticed he was being watched he would… {change his behavior}”. I don't want to speculate about an Investigation I didn't conduct at an event where I wasn't present … but that screams to me that he knew exactly what he was doing, knew it was wrong, and was doing it intentionally, to gain an advantage. Those are the criteria that must be met - and it is the Head Judge's burden to decide what he or she believes has really happened. (It's never fun, but it's sometimes easier than others.)

Without mentioning particulars, I can relate a similar situation in which I wasn't able to investigate fully; the player in question was reported to have questionable shuffling techniques when handling his opponent's deck. However, when we tried to observe, to see what he might be doing, we only learned that he was very good at detecting our presence. That's almost as suspicious as the behavior you described - but not quite enough to pull the trigger, in my view. And, in your scenario, you might have felt it wasn't quite enough - like I said, it's a tough decision, but it's yours (as Head Judge).

Now, back into the e-lamp… :)

On Thu Jul 11 21:21, Scott Marshall wrote:
> Seriously: the phrase that jumped out at me: “…when the player noticed he was being watched he would… {change his behavior}”. I don't want to speculate about an Investigation I didn't conduct at an event where I wasn't present … but that screams to me that he knew exactly what he was doing, knew it was wrong, and was doing it intentionally, to gain an advantage. Those are the criteria that must be met - and it is the Head Judge's burden to decide what he or she believes has really happened. (It's never fun, but it's sometimes easier than others.)

This. The double nickel in particular is something that is so blatently cheating that people are going to have a hard time convincing me to let them continue in the tournament. The likelihood that someone doesn't know that it's improving their draws or is not doing it deliberately is pretty low. Changing behaviour when watched is all the more damning.

There are many equivocal things that people do while shuffling, but this one should always be investigated and even if you don't DQ tell them in no uncertain terms that it's never acceptible under any circumstances.

Matt

Quick throw in from a non-native speaker: What is this ‘double-nickel’ everyone is talking about?
While I understand the discussion, and would agree that this player at least walks veeeeeery close to a DQ, I'd kinda like to know how he shuffles ;D.

On Fri Jul 12 10:15, Philip Körte wrote:
> Quick throw in from a non-native speaker: What is this ‘double-nickel’ everyone is talking about?
> While I understand the discussion, and would agree that this player at least walks veeeeeery close to a DQ, I'd kinda like to know how he shuffles ;D.

Stack all lands then all spells. Preferably 20/40 split. Now pile shuffle in 5 piles. Put the piles back on top in any order. Pile shuffle in 5 piles again. At this point any 7-card segment of your library has exactly 2-3 lands and any number of single cuts will not change this fact. 2x5 piles, 5 cents is a nickel => double nickel.

In my opinion people will not be doing this accidentally, they will have deliberately selected to do this because they believe it improves their draws, even if they don't know the mathematics about it. Maybe someone showed them and said “if you do this you won't get land clumps”. This hits most of the points for a DQ. Maybe they can claim that they don't know that making your draw less random is going to gain, or that when asked to shuffle this means the deck needs to be random, not stacked. I'm going to take some convincing though.

Matt

For players that are particularly good at spotting judges in the neighbourhood, sometimes I had to be a bit inventive and expand the investigation. I've put a floor judge checking on his shuffling method during a round and if he changes pattern and you are still not convinced make the next round no judge is nearby and paying attention at all at his section of the tournament during his shuffling. He might come back to his “cheating” pattern and you then afterwards can ask his opponent about the shuffling. I've caught some people that way.

It's not guaranteed catch, and depending on the opponent (how much attention he/she was paying to the shuffling) it might help you or not, but it's worth giving it a try.

Edited Carlos Navarrete Granado (July 12, 2013 02:17:07 PM)

I'll note that the “double-nickel” isn't the only way to accomplish that; doing a 4-pile shuffle followed by a 6-pile (or the other way around) is also effective. In short: don't ignore other unusual methods, just because they're not the “double-nickel”.

I'd be remiss if I didn't also add “Just because someone does the double-nickel doesn't mean they are Cheating.” It's a technique that is used to Cheat; using it doesn't make you a Cheater.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I'll note that the “double-nickel” isn't the only way to accomplish that; doing a 4-pile shuffle followed by a 6-pile (or the other way around) is also effective. In short: don't ignore other unusual methods, just because they're not the “double-nickel”.

When “pile shuffling” comes up, I always explain to players that this is not really shuffling at all; shuffling creates randomization whereas using piles is a mechanical process. It's generally fairly easy for players to understand the difference–especially once I explain that if you know a card's starting position and the number of piles, you can predict where the card ends. It's card 20, I have 5 piles… it's the 4th card on the 5th pile. That's not random; that's completely predictable.

I'd be remiss if I didn't also add “Just because someone does the double-nickel doesn't mean they are Cheating.” It's a technique that is used to Cheat; using it doesn't make you a Cheater.

This merits repeating. I've noticed lately that quite a number of new players seem to be learning magic with the “pile shuffle” approach. I don't know why this pattern has suddenly increased, but I've noticed that it's happening. It's wise to be aware that some players are learning this way, but at the same time keep your eyes, ears, and mind open! :)

Greetings…

Some of the things that I normally mention when educating players about pile shuffling:
- I generally alert them that we don't consider pile shuffling an actual shuffle.
- For those that like to use pile shuffling for distribution, I remind them that it cannot be the only method for randomization; nor the last method used. I advise them, since pile shuffling isn't really shuffling, that they must actively attempt to randomize (shuffle) their deck after any pile shuffling.

Most of my players understand the reasoning of this after going through the “known location of card” speech; sometimes I actually have to show them.

Until that time…

Originally posted by Richard Warren:

I remind them that it cannot be the only method for randomization

That's good advice!

Originally posted by Richard Warren:

nor the last method used

That, however, is not in policy. If they want to end with piles, but have already sufficiently randomized, that's fine. (Unless, of course, they have marked sleeves and the piles let them abuse that - and that's a bit different…)

I dissuade my players from ever calling it a pile shuffle.

“Piling” or “pile cut” if they really need that second word.

I like “pile count.” It is actually a very handy way of making sure you or
your opponent has either 40 or 60 cards. I know a fair number of players
who use it for that and catch sideboard errors or failures to de-Exile
pretty routinely.