Hi, since the last update in MTR, I felt a discrepancy in the solutions and understanding of other judges on the Pile Shuffle, so I would like an official answer about it. The MTR says:

Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized

So, technically speaking, a player could do pile shuffle when crack a fecth land or between each mulligan? To be clear, a player can pile shuffle every time he/she needs the deck to be randomized or only once per game/match using it as a method to count the deck?

Ps, I read the other topic (Pile Shuffling and the new MTR (opponent's deck)), but the discussion was more about if it is slow play or not.

Thanks

Edited Gregory Farias (Oct. 20, 2016 10:22:14 AM)

One pile count per randomization.

d:^D

It's been said that my answer wasn't clear enough; while I disagree, I also apologize.

Policy allows no more than one pile count, but that's allowed each time you randomize the deck. If you crack a fetch land, resolve a tutor effect, or even if you mulligan, you are required to randomize - and thus, you're allowed another pile count. If it was only allowed once per game or per match, that's what policy would say - and it doesn't.

That other thread does take the tangent of “is it Slow Play?”, but I also tried to emphasize, in that thread, this is a new and significant change; educate the players, first and foremost. My concern, from that other thread, is that some seemed to need another reason to issue penalties; this policy change isn't intended to fuel a “witch hunt”, but instead we want players to stop wasting time with a shuffling method that doesn't really randomize.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 20, 2016 11:14:06 PM)

Thank you for coming back to clarify Scott. Sometimes the MTR is very dry and the philosophy behind it is not always immediately apparent to those of us newer to the Judge Programme, or disconnected from those with a more detailed understanding of programme construction and philosophy.

I know that “one pile count per randomization” seems like crystal clear language, but I for one have found the extra clarity helpful on this occasion.

Thank you for doing the difficult job of fielding so many questions and providing so many answers, as well as walking the fine line between too much detail and not enough.

You should check out the annotated MTR (and IPG). It provides some great insight into situations like this (learning the philosophy).

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/ (or any section you're looking to understand.