This thread is for discussing the article The Australian Deck Check Technique by Matteo Callegari.

I've used this method before both at my own PPTQs and at Sunday Super Series Sealed events. It is extremely efficient and shows to be just as effective at catching DDLP issues.

One brief thing that I do differently than what is posted in the article is I do NOT encourage people hand the deck to their opponent without shuffling it themselves. As a player, I am incredibly uncomfortable with presenting a deck that I haven't shuffled, at least some. Therefore, I inform players “Your decks are still randomized, we haven't sorted them so feel free to just do a few quick shuffles before presenting.” I do this primarily because I don't want someone feeling like they can blame the judge for having to mulligan, especially since opponents frequently do minimal shuffling of their opponent's deck.

Marc, one of the advantages of this method is eliminating the need for the player to shuffle again. If they've already presented the deck, then all we're doing is returning to that point in the game - their deck, in the same state that it was originally presented. Just be sure you tell them “we did not change the order of any cards, so it's the same as when you presented - carry on, please”.

Allowing the player to shuffle again before presenting implies an extra minute or two on the time extension, as well as giving them one more chance to manipulate the deck *after* you've confirmed that it's truly random.

d:^D

Awesome description Mateo, I'd heard this method described a few times and never grokked it. But you words have gotten the idea across. Thanks.

Excellent method.
As we know, most limited deck contains almost all “not-basic-land” cards ONE each.
So if those are exist in list, those are correct!
And almost limited deck, “not-basic-land” cards are 25 or less.
Thus perhaps this check required only one minutes or so.

I'd like to suggest a slight addition to the procedure (in fact it may already have been assumed, so maybe I'm just making it explicit).

In Step 1, counting the deck, for a beginning-of-round deckcheck, compare the count (usually 40) to the number recorded when the decklist was counted.

To see why this is necessary, imagine a 41-card decklist and a 40 card deck (which has a singleton non-land missing). Step 3 wouldn't detect a problem.

Another possibility is to repeat step 3 once per colour, to focus only on a single column of the list: my deck-check partner and I found it easier at the beginning.

Having used it in GP Lille this weekend I can say that it is extremely efficient as we had decks returned to players in under 5 minutes in most cases without the need for an additional 3 minutes for shuffling. I can see a few issues with it in that you are more prone to human error though I think this will be based on the fatigue of the judge in question. Faster tournaments and more floor coverage by judges is always a big plus in my book though

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

In Step 1, counting the deck, for a beginning-of-round deckcheck, compare the count (usually 40) to the number recorded when the decklist was counted.

That would involve counting the list before the check, and I think we're moving away from taking time to do that unless we can “spare” the time. :)

If you felt so inclined, you could spend a minute (considering how quick the procedure is) to count the list before or after you check it to catch that 41st card. Or you can follow some of the other suggestions and check each color as you go.

And to echo some of the other comments, I was able to use teach and use this technique at the RPTQ (thanks insider information!) and it was really awesome. Definitely a boon for small/middle-size events where the number of judges is limited and you want to get their DC each round.

We still count the lists for decks we check during deck checks.
It adds about a minute to each deck check, but there's not much point to
checking someone's deck if you're not also checking their list.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

That would involve counting the list before the check

I wrote almost that same response, then decided I'd read that article one more time… sure enough, there's a “step zero”:

In order to maximize the performance, you’ll need one judge to fetch the decklists (and count 40+ maindeck cards) while you are grabbing the decks

Depending on how long it takes the players to shuffle and present, you might get both lists counted before you start the check, losing no time at all!

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (July 7, 2015 03:03:57 PM)

I should have been clearer: It is not suggested to count ALL the lists, but definitely count the lists of the decks you pull. Great! We are all on the same page.

We had a problem once with this method, where a judge misplaced “some” extra cards (12 lands) which weren't originally in the deck, putting them with it when giving it back. Useless to say, the unlucky player had a terrible match afterwards and realized only afterwards that his deck had been corrupted.

While most cases won't be as dramatic, human error can happen and a sideboard card can easily slide in, especially in limited where the sideboard is massive. I heard this concern from other judges: while in a regular DC the responsibility is still on the player, which should shuffle well (and count) before presenting to his opponent after the DC, with the Australian Method the responsibility not only lies entirely on the judge, but the player has absolutely no defense against it - he can't touch the deck since it's already considered presented.

Is it anything we could do to change this burden, without compromising the advantages of this technique?

-Will

Edited William Tiddi (July 9, 2015 01:01:53 PM)

Originally posted by William Tiddi:

I haven't tried this method yet, but I'm finding it very easy to understand. I'm not sure where such an error would occur. I would think that this type of error happens when the deck gets mixed with some portion of cards that are sideboarded - or the deck is placed back in a deckbox. The solution (as best I can see) is that the deck should never need to be placed in a deckbox containing a sideboard. Training can help eliminate this issue.

In fact, this method on the whole begs a brief training session I would think at the start of events with any Judges that have not yet performed this check. Not everyone reads the blog or forums (gasp) - but the idea of having a 40 card limited deck ready to go as an example so Judges new to this procedure can see it in action seems like great idea to me.