I had an interesting situation in a PPTQ last weekend - unsure as to which infraction it applies to.

A spectator comes up to me and points out that he can see a card that has been rotated in his deck - from looking at the side of the deck this is correct (the opening part of the deck has crinkled sleeves while the bottom part do not)

(By rotated I mean 180 degrees not face up)

After pausing the match and confirming the card is indeed rotated (and is the same as the spectator though it was), I investigate. The result is inconclusive (The last shuffle was several turns ago - the card rotated has an impact but not so much that you would gain a clear advantage knowing its coming - the card was several cards from the top so it would be something of a master plan for this to be a cheat - speaking to both players I am unconvinced this was a deliberate attempt to gain advantage)

The question I'm left with is which infraction applies - I'm inclined to go with marked cards - though the IPG examples don't appear to match with this? (All the sleeves are no more “marked” than any other)

Edited Christopher Ambery (Dec. 10, 2017 08:48:55 AM)

Marked cards could work.

Also if you want to make sure about no foul play you can deck check the person twice
once to set his deck to the right side and later during a different round mid round check for repeating occurrence. :)

Marked cards is definitely the right call here; the rotated card is clearly distinguishable from the rest of the deck. The IPG examples aren't meant to be an exhaustive list of the ways that cards can be marked.

Cards or sleeves in a player’s deck have inconsistencies on them that might allow them to be differentiated from each other while in the library.

This seems to fit quite neatly into Marked Cards as far as I can tell. Is there a reason you think it doesn't fit?

How about “not everything is an infraction”?

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

How about “not everything is an infraction”?

Are you implying that the stated scenario isn't an infraction? Can you clarify why not?

I've always handled this as a Marked Cards infraction. Other than the player's opponent searching the player's library, this is most likely the player's fault. Inquiring the players about past searches and shuffles is required.
I've always reminded players in prereleases and casual games that this would be an infraction in competitive REL.

I've had situations with rotated cards in decks come up many times at comp REL. Anytime I caught this, (typically during a deck check) I asked the owner if they could tell me how it happened. At times, the owner suggested they could have not been careful enough while shuffling, exchanging cards between the maindeck and sideboard, etc. and that's when I issued TE-Marked Cards infraction because I determined they caused the mistake.

There were other times when I didn't issue a penalty to the owner of the deck because a rotated card was the fault of their opponent instead - this can happen a lot actually. there was one time when a player picked up their opponent's deck to shuffle it but accidentally left the bottom card on the table. They then picked up that card and shoved it back into the middle of the deck but inserted it the wrong way. This mistake was obviously not caused by the deck's owner so therefore there could be no penalty.

To summarize above, rotated cards in decks are a problem but it's not always an infraction. You have to check who's responsible for the problem first.

Edited Eric Paré (Dec. 11, 2017 10:46:18 AM)

Eric makes an additional good point, about not penalizing one player for another's mistake.

But I'll simply restate what I said, because some just don't seem to accept the simple truth, that not everything is an infraction.

So a card got turned around; you investigate, sure - and then (hopefully!) realize that it's OK to just fix it and carry on.

d:^D

Naturally I wouldn't assume the player's fault but ask questions into how the cards could've been turned downward. If it was the opponent's doing, I wouldn't assess an infraction.
Thank you Eric for that example, I wouldn't have thought of that. :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Eric makes an additional good point, about not penalizing one player for another's mistake.

If we're assessing who is responsible for the problem, should we not also assess the person responsible in situations where the corners are bent or scuffs are found? Ie: The person presenting the deck or their opponent. Either could just as easily bend the corners or leave a scuff on sleeves (players can be grubby sometimes) and this would normally result in TE-Marked Cards in most situations. The suggestion that cards oriented the wrong way isn't ever an infraction seems counter-intuitive to the philosophy of TE-MC.

I believe it is a good practice, when you encounter marked cards or such anomalies, to investigate. Usually, the situation is cleared sufficiently. Still, from time to time you can uncover something not so pristine.

Originally posted by Erin Murphy:

The suggestion that cards oriented the wrong way isn't ever an infraction seems counter-intuitive

…but that's not what I said.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Originally posted by Erin Murphy:

The suggestion that cards oriented the wrong way isn't ever an infraction seems counter-intuitive

…but that's not what I said.

d:^D

Hi Scott,

It seems your message is not quite getting through. Would you mind expanding?

It's very true that not everything is an infraction, but making that statement in this context seems to suggest that a card being rotated in the deck isn't Marked Cards. A card is quite clearly distinguishable from the rest of the deck; if this scenario is sometimes marked cards, when is it marked cards and (perhaps more importantly) when is it not marked cards?

If it's never marked cards, why not?

Thanks in advance! : )

I think we can at least all agree that if this is an infraction, the infraction it is, is Marked Cards.

If I found a player with all their sideboard cards rotated, for example, I would certainly be issuing Marked Cards with the upgrade (after investigating for cheating) for example.

If this one card it's not clear what happened is not worth any infraction then there's presumably a middle ground where we're issuing Marked Cards as just a warning.

Fundamentally though, a single warning isn't that big of a deal and serves to remind the player to pay more attention to try and avoid it (from any source) in the future. I'd be hard pressed to say someone was wrong if they issue a Marked Cards warning here.