I have heard from a judge friend of mine that playing Rock-Paper-Scissors is not an acceptable method of deciding who goes first at Competitive REL. The argument is that RPS does not give both players an equal chance of winning since it (at least nominally) has an element of psychological skill that might enable a more experienced player to win more often. Is this argument correct? If so, what are the criteria for an acceptable method of determining who goes first, other than the stipulation that it be “mutually agreeable” to both players ?

Rock-Paper-Scissors is fine, if both players agree to it.

d:^D

If you're concerned about the possible edge of Rock-Paper-Scissors, use the
version that uses cards. I've seen it done with Rock Lobster-Paper
Tiger-Scissors Lizard from Unglued. I personally use Bulbasaur,
Charmander, and Squirtle. Either way, sleeves (different from your deck)
should be used. Present the three cards, then choose one facedown for
yourself and let your opponent choose one of the others. Alternatively,
have your opponent choose the cards (facedown) for both of you.

No way to gain an edge by these methods, and also avoids the ties and
re-rolling common to “high roll” or other methods using dice.

Another method is Forest-Island-Mountain.

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then
their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to
destroy.”
- Christopher Dawson

I took a page from Kevin Desprez's book (link) and started rolling a dice for ‘even’ or ‘odd’ - no ties are possible, and the result is fair even if you roll the usual spindown dies (which is not the case on both accounts if you use them to roll for the higher number).

I'm not a fan of RPS or variants. I present this as an example of why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptZbLWFzxpQ

Sure, 99% of players are probably not as skilled as this guy is to be able to pull it off that often, but if someone learns some of these techniques and ups their success rate to be higher than random, is that fair?

It's random whether or not people will play RPS; I always say “I like rock-paper-scissors, but will do whatever you like”. Some will, some won't, no issues. The ‘psychological’ element of RPS is actually still fairly random(esp. w/o a psych workup of each opponent), and I think falls into ‘statistical insignificance’ for our purposes–like the font/ink used on D20s potentially affecting even/odd due to differential air resistance when thrown, for example.

If RPS isnt fine, then players would have to prove that their dice are Laplace-dice too. We don't want to dig into that. If someone cheats, they cheat. If someone doesn't cheat, rolling higher on Spindown, playing RPS best of 1, best of 3, rolling even, is all fine.

The key here is, that players are free to choose any method they like, as long as they both agree to it, and as long as it's not disruptive to the rest of the tournament (setting up a speed-run to whoever reaches the other side of the GP venue was deemed NOT appropriate on one occasion)

Yes, some methods are easier to cheat with, or are percieved to be easier to cheat with. As a judge, if players ask, I always suggest using even / odd on rolling a die, where one player selects a die, then the other player calls even or odd. I use this method also when playing myself, although if people want to do highest, I'm fine with that as long as we're not using a single spindown. When playing people that have poor English skills, I sometimes suggest ‘highest’ since people will know what that means, but might not know ‘even/odd’.

Rock, Paper, Scissors does not just reward the ability to read your opponent, it also gives you an opportunity to study your opponent. Losing RPS to see whether your opponent tries to read your move may well be worth it when deciding during the game whether he has a counter in his hand or not. Playing a Magic tournament requires different skills, and some of those skills have nothing to do with the actual rules of the game. Trying to gain an advantage by these means is fine.

If you want to prohibit what is on the face of it an accepted random game, you have to show that it is not random.

In other words, if the players agree that it is random, neither one has to prove it. The burden of proof is on the judge to prove that the game is non-random in order to stop the players from using it. In the same way that if the players agree on using a die, then the burden of proof would be on the judge to show that the die is non-random if he wants to prohibit its use. Showing that for some people it might not be random is insufficient. You have to show that it is non-random for the two people that you see using it.

Typically, the only method of proving that RPS is non-random is to start asking questions of the players about their study of the game. This is not an action that I will choose to do - because the time invested into examining this issue will not be worth the reward I get from it. Consider how much time you will spend in questioning players when you find nothing, and it should be obvious.

There's a lot of other things to worry about, like the current shortcut discussion, for example, that are far more important to spend our time on.

Eric

True story - judged a PTQ many years ago where a player determined play/draw by Crocodile Dentist. Don't think anyone disagreed to it.

One more thing to consider: the winner of the truly random coin flip would get to choose whether to go first or second. Even if we determined that the RPS game was nonrandom, the winner of the coin flip could just choose to draw if they had already lost the RPS game. (Unless Improperly Determining a Winner applies here, which I highly doubt)

Personally I don't like RPS as a method, especially best of one. If you surprise someone with a round of RPS they almost always start with scissors.
We tried that out in school a lot. You win significantly more when you start with rock in that case. And I would assume that someone who plays RPS to determine the play/draw knows this.

I don't feel like we can intervene in this case though since both parties have to agree to this…

Fun aside, I like to offer a 6 sided die and ask “Prime or Non Prime”, I have gotten so many weird looks for that :)

I actually wish there was a set method. Just this Saturday at a PPTQ, I get called over because of a disagreement about the number of dice they had agreed to use. There are much better uses of a 50 minute round than trying to agree on how to randomly choose who gets to decide whether to go first.

At FNMs, though, I like to roll 5d6 and best poker hand wins.

A set method would just create the same disagreements on whatever the material provided or the technique used by a player fit or not the set method. Rules lawyers gonna try to law rules: the solution isn't on providing more precise and strict rules, but on using your judge authority to stop them arguing on pointless technicalities.
If players disagree on a method, promptly intervene, fix by rolling a dice yourself on even or odd, and make sure they actually start their match. Educate them once their match ended and you have some time between rounds.

- Emilien