There was an interesting situation that came up during a PPTQ I was at today, and I want your thoughts.

Both players pile shuffled once then continued to shuffle and present their decks. At that point, decks were retrieved for a deck check. Being aware of the new policy, after the deck check the players asked you if they could pile shuffle again before their first game.

As the head judge for this tournament, what would your ruling be?

Would you make changes to current policy to cover this scenario, and if so, how?

I get the strong impression that we are overthinking this. Pile counting can be done te verify that your deck has the correct amount of cards, which is only useful at the start of a game. After you counted and the judge took your deck away from you, then returns it, can you still bee 100% certain that's it's the correct amount of cards? I would say that the player is entitled to count again here.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

I get the strong impression that we are overthinking this. Pile counting can be done te verify that your deck has the correct amount of cards, which is only useful at the start of a game. After you counted and the judge took your deck away from you, then returns it, can you still bee 100% certain that's it's the correct amount of cards? I would say that the player is entitled to count again here.

Even judges returning to a table can lose cards on the way in.. happens.

i would let them count again.

Yes, i would let them Pile Count again.

When you are presenting your deck, you verify that it is legal. Because of the deckcheck they need to shuffle + present again, so if they use Pile Counting to verify that the deck contains the correct number of cards, that is fine. The judge may forgot or leave some cards at the deckcheck area, and the players still need to present a legal deck.

I think this is a good example of the underlying philosophy being important.

Nice question Erik!

It's worth pointing out that, if you are using the Polish/Australian
deck-check method, in which the deck order is preserved, then obviously no,
they cannot pile again, as they have already presented and are not given
the opportunity to reshuffle and re-present. So it depends on the method
being used by your deckcheck team.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

It's worth pointing out that, if you are using the Polish/Australian
deck-check method, in which the deck order is preserved, then obviously no,
they cannot pile again, as they have already presented and are not given
the opportunity to reshuffle and re-present. So it depends on the method
being used by your deckcheck team.

I think this is a very incorrect and dangerous statement. After Polish/Australian deckchecks, players always have the right to give the decks a quick shuffle. If a player draws an opening hand with 0 lands, we don't want them to blame the judge for stacking their deck. They don't need the full 3 minutes to randomise a fully sorted deck, a few quick shuffles will do, but the opponent is always the last one to touch the deck.
After someone took away my pile of cards worth more than 1000 euro, I would love to count they are still all there. Please, respect the point of view from the player, and as I said before: do not overthink this too much. This rule is to stop wasting time with multiple pile counts, it's not to prevent players from counting their deck when they are actually right in wanting to do so.

This isn't really covered by policy, so I'll share my OPINION; please don't cite this as an ‘O’fficial answer.

The process of a Deck Check - even one using the new, no-shuffle-required, methods - interrupts the game, and the mindset of the players in that game. I'd allow them to start the pre-game process over.

Consider an example from professional golf (which also occurs in many other sports). A golfer has a pre-shot routine; these vary by player, but many, many pro golfers have a routine that they always follow, before hitting the ball. And sometimes things happen as they're about to start their swing; spectators on a nearby hole erupt in cheers after a spectacular shot, a helicopter or plane flies over, a loud train whistle startles everyone - whatever it is, it breaks their concentration … so they start the routine over, to get back into the proper mind set.

I think that's reasonable, even if I'm not a pre-shot routine kind of person (maybe I should be?).

d:^D

Although, in my experience, the Polish/Australian methods are faster to
execute and worth doing for that reason alone, it seems to me that allowing
the players to restart the pre-game procedure negates one of the great
benefits of that method; namely, not having to give a 3 minute extension.
Bear in mind that, even if we don't give that extension, the players are
going to believe they have that time if we let them completely restart
their pre-game shuffle as if they hadn't done it before, and thus may end
up delaying the tournament, necessitating the extension that we were trying
not to give in the first place. Once we're giving an extension back
anyway, there's little reason to bother with preserving the deck order.
The whole point of that, after all, is to shortcut the reshuffling time and
get the match moving again as fast as possible. Letting the players pile
count again is the most time-consuming part of the pre-game process, so
we're again defeating the purpose of the time-saving aspect of this
method. All of that seems to suggest that we just shouldn't be using the
Polish/Australian methods at all, which I think is kind of a shame, as they
seem fairly innovative and my players have certainly seemed to appreciate
the time-saving.

As I said, I find the execution of the deck check faster using the
Polish/Australian method than using the traditional method, so even if
we're giving the players the 3-minute extension and pre-game reset, I'm
likely to continue to use it barring specific instruction not to. I do
appreciate the player perspective (although the argumentative side of me
wants to say that the P/A method is more efficient at not losing cards,
since everything stays in a tight two piles). All that said, I don't know
what the middle ground is.

I believe the final, ‘O’fficial stance re: these new, non-shuffling deck check methods, was that we still give +3 minutes, even though they no longer need to shuffle. The benefits of these new methods include a generally more efficient technique (once learned & practiced), and not sticking players with a deck in decklist order. In players' (superstitious) minds, you always get mana screwed or flooded after a deck check; if we can eliminate the source of that stigma, it's a form of customer service.

So, carry on with these new methods, but I'm recommending that we let them pile, as if they never had.

d:^D

Because the deck changed zones, when it's returned to the match it's no longer the same object, and so can be pile-shuffled again.

Seriously though, judges are human too. We make mistakes, and it's totally possible that we dropped or misplaced a card in the sideboard, or when attempting to slip the cards back into their box.

Is the resistance against letting the players re-count about the stigma against pile-counting in specific? What if you hand the deck back, and the player wants to count everything to make sure it's all there – without changing its order? That sort of request seems totally fair and reasonable, right? I can't think of any judge that would forbid a player to re-count their Legacy deck after it was out of their sight for several minutes.

So if we would let the players count their cards again, it seems like letting them pile-count is an acceptable way to do that (it's my own preferred way of counting my deck).

I heartily approve this sort of action as being 100% within the spirit of the rule. Let them pile shuffle again. And if they ask about it being within the rules, I'll definitely wink and explain that because it changed zones, it's a new object, and they're welcome to pile-shuffle again. :)

Edited Clint Herron (Jan. 24, 2017 06:14:57 PM)

Clint, thanks for adding that “Seriously…” disclaimer; my brain had already started leaking out my ears, after reading just the first line… o_O

May I humbly suggest making darn sure that anyone who hears you use that rationalization, knows you're just joking? Because some will take that seriously, and then my brain might start leaking again…

d:^D

haha, sounds good.

Now you've given me pause, and I'll need to make double-sure of my audience if I decide to make that joke again. :)

Thank you all for your replies, I am really happy that this post sparked quite the discussion!

Personally, I also feel like letting the players pile shuffle once more is within the spirit of the policy, as us judges are just as prone to making mistakes as everyone else. I have misplaced or dropped a card on several occasions (as a player). If that were ever to happen after I completed a deck check for a player, I would rather them find out immediately before their game started rather than after the game, or worse, mid-game. That way, we could fix the error as soon as possible. Even though current policy states that it should only be done once before a game, for the sake of player experience I feel like it should be allowed for the players to count their decks a second time.

Thank you Scott for the official ruling!

That all sounds fair enough to me. I was remembering one of the big
appeals of the P/A method being avoiding the 3-minute extension, which was
why I harped on it so. I will continue to advocate at least trying it out,
as I personally find it considerably faster, but it's good to know that the
3-minute extension should still be given.