Consider Chord of Calling fetching a Courser of Kruphix, where you're supposed to reveal the top card of your library before shuffling. A reason for why 400.5 has to apply.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

There has been no direction that allows you to reorder your opponent's library, therefore any reordering is no different from if you just grabbed their library when they cracked a fetchland and clumped all the land together. It should be returned exactly as it was minus the cards that were searched up. At the very least, this gets a GRV with a cheating investigation.

Players are also regularly reordering their own libraries while fetching or tutoring. Are you saying they should also be handed GRVs for that? If not, what's the difference?

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

I would definitely use the words “attempted cheating” in any talk I had with him

Please avoid such accusations unless you're actually, you know, accusing him of Cheating. He isn't, and apparently had no intent to break a rule, he just wanted an advantage he thought he was entitled to…

So, what do we do? “A, you aren't allowed to do that; further, it's just a waste of time, since N is about to shuffle anyway.”

I don't want this to digress into an argument about shuffling, randomization, etc., but we don't care if a player rearranges a library before they shuffle it, we care if they make a reasonable attempt to randomize afterwards. Insufficient shuffling requires two elements: 1, the possibility that “a player could know the position or distribution of one or more cards in {the} deck”; 2, the shuffling isn't “thorough”. (The definition of “thorough” is where we often get into divergent debates - please, don't.)

If a player is resolving a spell that lets them look through a library, and it will be followed by a shuffle, then there's no harm in letting them organize or re-arrange it as they go. It's the quality of the shuffle that follows that we need to focus on, more than what happens first. If a player mana weaves, then does a couple half-hearted overhand shuffles? We've got reason to investigate, and the mana weave is one of the facts we'll consider. If a player mana weaves, then shuffles like crazy? Nothing to see, move along, find something productive and positive to do…

If you believe that a technical application of 400.5 prevents ordering of the library, I'd argue the opposite - that the process of searching and choosing is, in fact, a re-ordering - i.e., it's an effect that allows you to do so. But again, that's a diversion, not really worth arguing about.

Kudos to Mark McGovern, for pointing out the potential cheat that does exist - namely, A pretending that N can't shuffle… that didn't happen here, but it is a way in which A could have crossed the line.

d:^D

As said previously, I would focus my investigation way more on why Alex thought that it would help him as his comments suggest that he saw previous instances of insufficient shuffling of his opponent. That would then lead to a cheating DQ investigation of that instance completely independent of whether he broke a rule with the rearrangement itself since he didn't call attention to it earlier to gain an advantage now with his extraction.

Edited Christian Genz (March 30, 2015 11:55:46 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

we don't care if a player rearranges a library before they shuffle it, we care if they make a reasonable attempt to randomize afterwards

The problem being, here, that the player performing the shuffle may be unaware of what just happened as reordering happened on the other side of the table.

I feel very uncomfortable ruling “nothing to see here, move along” when a player broke a rule (400.5) in an attempt to gain an advantage.

I feel quite uncomfortable with this ruling for the simple reason that many players do not shuffle as thoroughly as they ought to, especially in the middle of a match. Lets take this to it's logical conclusion, and imagine if A had slid all the lands to the bottom of the deck. Are we then saying that if N suffers a glut of spells or lands, it's entirely N's fault? Strictly speaking, it is N's fault, but I don't like N potentially benefiting from this. From what Scott has said, if I understand correctly, A is completely within his rights to do this.

Say A had noticed that N performs 2 or 3 riffle shuffles after getting her deck back. (In my experience, not particularly uncommon.) A is definitely trying to gain an advantage if he tries to reorder N's deck into lands/spells.

If A *doesn't* attempt to reorder N's deck, does that mean A should call a judge if A only performs 2 or 3 riffle shuffles? I think the general consensus here would be that A is being a dick.

Would a reasonable compromise be that if A does reorder N's deck, he should be open about the fact? Then it really is N's fault if she doesn't shuffle properly.

Christian, if A *thought* he was cheating, but in actuality, he wasn't, since he's allowed to reorder N's deck, what justification do you have for a cheating investigation?

Edited Huw Morris (March 31, 2015 03:51:54 AM)

Huw, I would not at all focus on the current reordering at all. I would want to find out why he thought he might get an advantage out of reordering the library because to me that sounds like he saw previous instances of insufficient shuffling of his opponent and not calling attention to that to later gain an advantage actually IS cheating. (And besides you never need any justification for a cheating investigation, as soon as you see something shady start your investigation. If your investigation then makes you belive everything was perfectly fine, fine nothing lost but actually a lot to be gained for the integrity of the tournament if he was cheating.)

Edited Christian Genz (March 31, 2015 05:06:08 AM)

…The problem being, here, that the player performing the shuffle may be unaware of what just happened as reordering happened on the other side of the table…

…many players do not shuffle as thoroughly as they ought to…

Players should be shuffling sufficiently that the deck is random. We should be doing more to educate them on the need to shuffle thoroughly at all times for several reasons:

1) It is an infraction not to - it's important enough to have an entire infraction dedicated to it (TE: Insufficient Shuffling)
2) It creates opportunities for your opponent to cheat that shouldn't exist
3) It opens the player to accusations of cheating

Edited Marc Shotter (March 31, 2015 06:17:34 AM)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

…The problem being, here, that the player performing the shuffle may be unaware of what just happened as reordering happened on the other side of the table…

…many players do not shuffle as thoroughly as they ought to…

Players should be shuffling sufficiently that the deck is random. We should be doing more to educate them on the need to shuffle thoroughly at all times for several reasons:

1) It is an infraction not to - it's important enough to have an entire infraction dedicated to it (TE: Insufficient Shuffling)
2) It creates opportunities for your opponent to cheat that shouldn't exist
3) It opens the player to accusations of cheating

About no. 2.

If player A stacks his deck during pregame procedures, while player B is required to shuffle A's deck afterwards, that's still Cheating. Even if B shuffles it thoroughly making A's cheat unsuccessful.

Agreed, my comment is only to highlight that certain forms of cheating don't work if you fully randomize a deck so it just makes good sense to shuffle thoroughly every time, not to suggest it isn't cheating.

Perhaps that should have read ‘eliminates the impact of some cheating even if it isn’t caught'

I found myself greatly confused by the discussion here.

Reading, understanding and respecting all the opinions above I can only come up with one conclusion:
The whole 30 posts-long “storm in the glass of water” could've been solved if not entirely avoided by the simplest of solutions available - applying CR 400.5 - it does exist for a reason after all.
One could've then simply issue a GPE - GRV Warning to the player, further explaining to them that “since they have now been instructed their actions are incorrect and rule-breaking further instances of this infraction may now be considered intentional and with advantage-gaining intent” which may allow for a USC-Cheating investigation.

Regarding the CR 400.5 applying here or not (and I don't want to start a new argument - Uncle Scott explained enough its not worth it)
The card extraction is indeed already a re-ordering, permitted by an effect, that effect however allows for nothing but the extraction of the specified cards,so the rest of the library should've remain untouched unless Im misinterpreting or exaggerating things.
Well at least that's my point of view on the given subject.Again I mean no disrespect to any of the opinions above.
Looking forward to see the final solution here, take care fellow Judges.

This question has turned out to be far more interesting than it initially appeared!

Yeah Marc, my problem is not that people *should* shuffle their libraries properly. My problem is that in the middle of a game, people have a habit of being lazy and not shuffle properly. I know I've been guilty of that, in situations where I don't already know the order of my library. If I'm searching for a particular card and I'm not really noticing the order of the other cards, I'll often give a quick shuffle and present. As long as I truthfully have no idea of the position of any card in my library, I'm happy.

Scott has given the final solution, which is that 400.5 does not apply, therefore there can be no GRV. The only point I'm unclear on now is that if A sees that N is in the habit of not shuffling fully midgame, is A cheating by stacking N's deck prior to N shuffling? And does it make a difference if A attempt's to stack N's deck without N noticing?

Edited Huw Morris (March 31, 2015 09:12:29 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

“A, you aren't allowed to do that; further, it's just a waste of time, since N is about to shuffle anyway.”
…
If you believe that a technical application of 400.5 prevents ordering of the library, I'd argue the opposite - that the process of searching and choosing is, in fact, a re-ordering - i.e., it's an effect that allows you to do so. But again, that's a diversion, not really worth arguing about.

But, if we allow A to rearrange his opponent's library, how can we tell him that he isn't allowed to that?

I'd agree Huw that players (myself included) don't shuffle well enough, but we should be calling them on that I think. The problem is that while you or I might genuinely have no real idea what order cards were in, this is so easy to abuse.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

The only point I'm unclear on now is that if A sees that N is in the habit of not shuffling fully midgame, is A cheating by stacking N's deck prior to N shuffling? And does it make a difference if A attempt's to stack N's deck without N noticing?

The problem here is ‘stacking the deck’. The only logical reason for doing so is to gain an advantage and personally I lean to the idea that most people know this isn't allowed. I'd be on USC-Cheating for both of these.

The problem with 400.5 being applied to someone searching is that we have a lot of library manipulation mechanics that allow for options of what to select - if we apply this here, then a player using a demonic tutor and reviewing a few potential cards has to somehow fan out a deck of cards without changing the order to consider several cards while making sure they don't reveal anything to their opponent. At some point this becomes a test of dexterity!

Lots of great examples of the frailty of e-mail as a tool for communication…

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

But, if we allow A to rearrange his opponent's library, how can we tell him that he isn't allowed to that?

Seems like quite the conundrum - but you're questioning an interpretation that differs from what I was really saying. He's not allowed to stack the deck (which, oddly, isn't an infraction, even though almost everyone knows it's “wrong”), and it is a waste of time, since it is an infraction if you don't shuffle sufficiently.

Andrea Mondani
If player A stacks his deck … that's still Cheating.

Close - it's the intentional Insufficient Shuffling following the stacking that makes it Cheating.

Huw Morris
if A sees that N is in the habit of not shuffling fully midgame, is A cheating by stacking N's deck prior to N shuffling?

Again, close - A is Cheating by noticing an infraction and not calling attention to it, but instead using it to his advantage.

But here's where it gets sticky - and you said it yourself, Huw:

I'll often give a quick shuffle and present

That's how players play the game, and we shouldn't be too eager to penalize natural, harmless behavior. Insufficient Shuffling is a bit of a conundrum in itself; it's fairly subjective, and there's no precise, technical definition of “sufficient”. (There have been untold numbers of posts through the years about it…)

We do, however, have a very clear definition - albeit still subjective - and Huw, you just excused yourself from an infraction with your admission:

As long as I truthfully have no idea of the position of any card in my library, I'm happy.

As stated in the IPG:

A deck is not shuffled if the judge believes a player could know the position or distribution of one or more cards in his or her deck.

Our best guidance on how & when Insufficient Shuffling matters comes from the examples:

A. A player forgets to shuffle his library after searching for a card.
B. A player searches for a card, then gives the deck a single riffle-shuffle before presenting the deck to her
opponent.
C. A player fails to shuffle the portion of his deck revealed during the resolution of a cascade ability.

From those, we can conclude that this infraction should be used when the lack of shuffling could damage the integrity of the game.

Hopefully that helps clarify, as some people seem to be disagreeing with things I didn't really say. That points to a lack of clarity, so let's make sure we're all saying the same thing…

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (March 31, 2015 11:06:14 AM)