Please remember that this method is still in beta testing.
Video is as short as possible to show the method and let other judges test it. It does not cover all possible examples (article will - at least I hope so). I also did not cover specific cases, because I wanted to see how often you will report certain issues. Moreover I am still looking for weak aspects of this metod to improve it.

I really appreciate anyone who tried/will try this method in real (like Greg Lauro - overall very nice tournament report). It may look not so good from the video - it is much better when you try it in real, so I encourage everyone to try it at some small GPT or PPTQ.

Now I will try to cover most of the questions:

Charlotte, Luca - you pointed out that it might be hard to find some marked card patterns without sorting the deck. In general judges opinions are splitted in this case (I got opposite opinions from both L2 and L3 judges). Still it is one of concerns I am aware of. New method has one advantage over classic method - if you forget/fail to check mana weaving before starting a deck check you can still perform it afterwards. I will cover this point in an article for sure.

Charlotte, Chris
For mid-round deck checks you can use any of following:
- check sideboard first to see how much cards went out, and how much in. You stack sideboard cards and leave sided out tapped visible - for easier counting,
- check deck as on the video - but also make marks in the sideboard, so you see how much cards went in before checking the side. Than you check if all cards from main which did not hit the limit are in the side.
Personaly I would use 1st method, but if you start from checking the deck nothing is lost, you can use the 2nd way to check the side.

Adam, Scott - fortunetly I am not “rules lawyer” so I just gave extention equal to deck check length.

Scott, Nathaniel
I know that people in general dont like changes, but if a change is good they will use to it with time. I already met one player who was on my event, and on WMCQ asked if we can always not stack their decks with deck checks. Lower time extensions means faster rounds and it reduces wait time for next round. Players are getting bored and iritate if they have to wait because someone has +15 minutes time extension. But this requires some time an propper technique - not to reveal bottom card as you take the decks and give them back.

Joe - multiple colors are very usefull, but dont use BLACK and BLUE please (it is much harder to keep track if you use the same color as on the decklist, flashy colors are best - and they really work). If you want to take advantage of this method both judges performing a deck check must use it. 6 minutes is not bad, but I am sure you will get better times with practice. Missing a card might be a problem, that's why we test it - on the other hand no one reported this issue so far (I used this method on three events and did not have problem). If someone have problems with searching text efficiently or the decklist is completly unreadable he should use classic method.

Uff, wall of text but I wanted to answer most of your concerns or give some little advice - if I missed someone I promise to answer in the future. I don't expect this method to work on 100% of decks, but if it will make high amount of deck checks faster it is worth to use it (if we encounter serious problems we will lose the time for investigation anyway).

I really appreciate your interest and effort. I am really gratefull for your opinions (especially those which cover some issues - they are very helpful). Once more I encourage to test in real.

One thing I noticed about reports from this method is that while extensions seemed shorter, time actually checking decks seemed longer. While this is fine for a large event like an Open or a Grand Prix, where other judges can handle floor calls while you perform a check, I wouldn't recommend it for PPTQs or other events that are usually judged solo or as a pair, where every minute checking the deck is a minute where no one is on the floor and where you run the risk of having to end the check early to take a call.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

and where you run the risk of having to end the check early to take a call

Interestingly, that's exactly why this new method might be better for small events; if you aren't rearranging the deck, you can simply grab it, give it back as is, and let the players carry on as if (almost) nothing happened.

I'll also note that I think it's unfair to compare timings between the way you've always done it, and a new & unfamiliar method. Of course the new way is slower … at first.

d:^D

A couple of remarks from me, as I'm one of the first judge that try this method :)

1. Communication is a key: it's important to tell players, that their deck are exacly in the same order as they presented it. Most of the reaction for this info was really possitive. But if player started to shuffle his deck - I would not penaltise him - one or two riffle shuffle didn't last long, and if it makes player happier - I'm ok with it. If I suspect, that player might seen a bottom card of deck, I would propably just instruct them to do “fast shuffle” without extra time - although it isn't supported by the policy now.
Don't panic if you change order of the few cards in deck - you just make some random order to another random.
Remeber that players still cound and should shuffle their opponent deck!

2. Good tips to make this kind of deckcheck faster is to have a brief look at the decklist before start; most players put cards in decklist in some logical order: creature first/CMC/Color etc. If you catch it, searching for name on the list goes really fast.

3. I would not recommend this method if you expect many decks with foreign language cards and/or you are not famililar with the format.
The “what is this chinessee card, that I have never seen before” problem is much easier to solve with all the deck sorted.

btw. Jarek, I'm glad that you finally decided to “go public” :)

Originally posted by Adam Kolipiński:

btw. Jarek, I'm glad that you finally decided to “go public” :)

I just don't like to show uncompleted work ;) but as I see feedback and “brainstorming” that happens right now I am happy that I published it in current state.

Scott Marshall
Interestingly, that's exactly why this new method might be better for small events; if you aren't rearranging the deck, you can simply grab it, give it back as is, and let the players carry on as if (almost) nothing happened.

One of things I never thought about - it is really nice, that you can give deck back as it is, and get into 10 minutes investigation for example.

Scott Marshall
I'll also note that I think it's unfair to compare timings between the way you've always done it, and a new & unfamiliar method. Of course the new way is slower … at first.

That's why I encourage and ask judges to try it in real if possible. I used this method at event I was judging alone just because I was able to check both decks in 10 minutes and give 10 minutes time extension. Still if someone will find new method not suitable for him, he can stick with old one. Yet I highly encourage anyone to try it.

So I just tested this new method at a small Standard GPT this past Sunday. I was working by myself, but had tested the method a bunch on a few of my friends decks before the event to get the rhythm down. I really like it for smaller events like this. At a recent SCG Open, my average DC time was about 5 minutes using a CMC sort method. With this method, I was just over 3 minutes. Players at this event were actually pretty surprised at the turnaround. So for myself personally, I really like this method and will probably continue to use it at my smaller in-store Comp REL events.

We've tested this new technique at the last Belgian WMCQ and these were our conclusions:

1. Checking is not that much faster (yet), but we save at least the 3 minutes extra time. On average our checked tables had 5-6 minutes time extension (compared to the regular 9-10).

2. 4 different judges tried the method, all of them liked doing it this way and got the hang of it really quickly

3. We need a box of colored pens at the deck check table :)

Originally posted by Jonas Drieghe:

1. Checking is not that much faster (yet), but we save at least the 3 minutes extra time. On average our checked tables had 5-6 minutes time extension (compared to the regular 9-10).

2. 4 different judges tried the method, all of them liked doing it this way and got the hang of it really quickly

3. We need a box of colored pens at the deck check table :)

I try too the new system, in a random competitive event in a local store.

When i do a “normal” deck check, spend 3-5 minutes to do a deck check, givin 6-8 extra minutes.
With the new system i spend 4-5 minutes (i think that in a few tournamentes it would be 3-4) givin 5 minutes.

I think that the new system is very interesting, nowadays i'm trying doing the same but instead of put the deck, pick up the card an flip it, put the deck face up, hold de card with one hand, check with the other and repeat. In theese way you keep looking the card all the time, and you may look the second card, which seems more comfortable.

The more troubleshooting of that is… don't forget colored pens!

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Rich DiLeo
<forum-21224-bf6f@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> With this method, I was just over 3 minutes.

I've been waiting for someone to mention they are fast enough that the
improvement is worth the effort. I'll give this a go some time soon :)


–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

One issue I noticed at my local PPTQ: when asked for decks, players picked them up quite casually and there was a big chance that either them or their opponent saw the bottom card of their library. The same happened when they were putting it into their deckbox and back out of it.

That's to be expected. There will be some player education to be done along the way. When we make swoops for decks we might need to be clear about the procedure with our first words.

“Leave your decks face down and in front of you and place your deckbox with sideboard next to your decks.”

Or something like that. That way we as judges can get the decks in the deckboxes without revealing information. Just leading with, “Hey, guys. Deckcheck,” may result in players just picking up their cards in a way that we can't be sure that they didn't see part of their deck.

Edited Addison Miller (Sept. 26, 2015 05:29:24 PM)

Originally posted by Francisco J. Riveiro:

but instead of put the deck, pick up the card an flip it, put the deck face up, hold de card with one hand, check with the other and repeat. In theese way you keep looking the card all the time, and you may look the second card, which seems more comfortable.

I think you have to flip the card anyway.
This way, you can check if the sleeves are not marked on their bottom or if you can see double cards trough the sleeve.
So having the deck face down and put the cards face up or having the deck face up and putting the card face down is a question of preferences.
I'll try both ways during my next tournament :)

In the last tournament, the average of extratime was 6 mins. I did the dc alone and check the 2 decks.

I still prefer put the deck in “the other way”, if the next card is the same that previous you mark two cards on time. For the sleeves, you check the same, at one point you can look the sleeve, is the same that look previous or later.

The article is ready and submitted to judge articles. It took more time than I expected but review and translation correction were needed.

I'm glad that you use the technique and adjust it to your personal preferences.

After article is published I hope for your feedback as always.

Food for thought:
what about two judges working in the following way:
- judge A rolls the deck, and reads the cards loud
- judge B marks the cards on decklist

then the opposite.

Worth a try?