It is a little ironic that there has been all this double nickel talk over the last few days. While attending a prerelease this weekend as a player I faced an opponent who, after game one began double nickel “shuffling” his deck. I watched him take all the lands out of his deck, put them on top, then make the five piles. I was debating what to do but I stopped him after the first pile shuffle and informed him that he wasn't going to double nickle his deck. He said he didn't know what I was talking about but from his reaction it was pretty obvious that he just realized he had been caught. I told him he needed to randomize his deck before continueing. After he presented, I shuffled his deck also.

The other decision I could have made was to let him complete his actions and call for the judge when he presented. I somewhat regret not doing this after he made further shady plays during the game. For example, he played an elf, put his hand on it to tap it for mana, looked at me, then decided to just pass the turn. I'm 100% sure that he was trying to decide whether or not he could get away with tapping it for mana as if it had haste. Later I found out that the night before him and his brother had been warned by other players at FNM for what appeared to be cheating with Maze's End.

As a player, how would you have handled this? Do you stop him and tell him sternly that his actions are inappropriate and let the prerelease continue or do you let him complete the double nickel and call for a judge?

I'd prefer to have concrete evidence before calling a judge over in such situations.
Doing all the actions as you have mentioned might not amount to what you think he would have done.
As long as there is sufficient shuffling afterwards to ensure proper randomization of the deck, I don't think there would be any issues with that.

I agree with you here. I did not allow him to complete his actions before proving that is where his shuffling was headed. I think my question is, is it more appropriate to not give him the opportunity to cheat and risk him doing it to another player or is it better prove he cheated and get him disqualified from what is friendly prerelease?

Even after I spoke to him about his technique, I still fealt he presented what was an insufficiently shuffled deck. After the first set of piles, he placed his deck in one hand, cut it several times by taking a chunk out of the middle of the deck and placing it on top, then set it in front of me.

Edited Eric Crump (July 15, 2013 02:59:16 PM)

Yes, it is better to wait for the player to finish shuffling then get a
judge involved.

There are numerous reasons:
* The impartial judge has more weight with your opponent, they are more
likely to sit up and take notice.
* The judge may have had 3 other complaints already and it is clearly time
to throw the book at them.
* etc.


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Eric Crump <
forum-5033-d6ba@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I agree with you here. I did not allow him to complete his actions before
> have proving that is where his shuffling was headed. I think my question
> is, is it more appropriate to not give him the opportunity to cheat and
> risk him doing it to another player or is it better prove he cheated and
> get him disqualified from what is friendly prerelease?
>
> Even after I spoke to him about his technique, I still fealt he presented
> what was an insufficiently shuffled deck. After the first set of piles, he
> placed his deck in one hand, cut it several times by taking a chunk out of
> the middle of the deck and placing it on top, then set it in front of me.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/28255/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/5033/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/5033/
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

On Mon Jul 15 05:48, Eric Crump wrote:
> Even after I spoke to him about his technique, I still fealt he presented what was an insufficiently shuffled deck. After the first set of piles, he placed his deck in one hand, cut it several times by taking a chunk out of the middle of the deck and placing it on top, then set it in front of me.

Note that if a player has a mana-weaved deck, any number of single cuts does not change the mana weaving. (Also note that aborting the double-nickel half way through, then doing any number of single cuts leaves it unplayably clumped, so if you had only cut he'd have been in trouble).

> I agree with you here. I did not allow him to complete his actions before have proving that is where his shuffling was headed. I think my question is, is it more appropriate to not give him the opportunity to cheat and risk him doing it to another player or is it better prove he cheated and get him disqualified from what is friendly prerelease?

Cheating isn't acceptible at any level, even a prerelease. If you're worried about the feel-bad for him, what about the feel-bad for everyone he cheated? Whether a judge actually disqualifies him or not I would certainly want Very Serious Official Words to be had at a minimum.

Matt

If it's not the last round, I would completely randomize his deck instead
of him, and after match, I would inform judges about what happen, so they
can monitor the player for the rest of the tournament (or maybe just the
next round - when he will be disqualified).

If i'ts the last round, i'd let him finish it and then call judge.

The problem with telling that player not to do that again is that if he is
a real cheater, he probably will stop doing it (but just until the end of
the tournament in order not to get disqualified) so the judges will have
nothing than your word as a proof.

Cheating is not acceptable anywhere and it's hard to prove it, so I think
the easier I make it for the judges, the better.


2013/7/15 Matthew Johnson <forum-5033-4aa7@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by David Zalesky:

Cheating is not acceptable anywhere and it's hard to prove it, so I think
the easier I make it for the judges, the better.

Sorry David, I'm missing your point on this: if cheating is not acceptable at all, why would you have two different behaviours depending on whether it's the last round or not?

Eric Crump
I agree with you here. I did not allow him to complete his actions before proving that is where his shuffling was headed. I think my question is, is it more appropriate to not give him the opportunity to cheat and risk him doing it to another player or is it better prove he cheated and get him disqualified from what is friendly prerelease?

From my personal point of view, I would place the palyer against the wall and tell him that he would have been DQed in a Competitive tournament. Hopefully I could “friendly scare” him so that he could play better.

On the contrary, if I correct him half-way, there's a different chance that he will try the double nickel whenever he feels that no “corrections” will happen when the judge or the TO are not watching and/or are not receiving complaints from other players.

I would have different approach because of the likelyhood of proving the
cheating. If I call a judge straightaway, the only thing he can use during
an investigation is my statement, opponent's statement and the deck itself,
but if I do not let the player know that I recognised his cheating and
inform judge withou letting my opponent knowing that, the Judge will have
one more piece of evidence (which can be crucial) - his or her own
observation of the player's shuffling technique during next round. And
that's the reason why I would act differently if it was last round.


2013/7/15 Stefano Ferrari <forum-5033-4aa7@apps.magicjudges.org>

Whether it is the first round or the last there is no reason to treat your
opponent with different standards.
I would let him finish his “shuffle” then call the judge. At the very least
let the judge know what is going on. This will allow the judge to check up
on this player in later rounds, the next prerelease, next week's FNM.
If I feel there is an issue it *needs *to be brought to the forefront or it
will not be corrected.

I definitely agree with Matthew here, think of every opponent this player
will have after you.

Originally posted by David Zalesky:

I would have different approach because of the likelyhood of proving the cheating. If I call a judge straightaway, the only thing he can use during an investigation is my statement, opponent's statement and the deck itself, but if I do not let the player know that I recognised his cheating and inform judge withou letting my opponent knowing that, the Judge will have one more piece of evidence (which can be crucial) - his or her own observation of the player's shuffling technique during next round. And that's the reason why I would act differently if it was last round.

Perhaps you mean having a different investigative technique? Especially depending on what else has happened previously during the event? I'm not sure the actual approach changes depending on “cheating/not cheating”.

Keep in mind that it is also very possible that the player simply doesn't know how to shuffle in a way that actually meets our desired expectations. At FNM especially, it is very common for a player to come in to the event with “poor shuffling technique”, spend the entire event shuffling that fashion, and only have it be detected by a more savvy opponent late in the event. While the ignorance is unfortunate, it also is a distinct possibility at Regular REL. (I've also heard anecdotally that certain games allow for this kind of behavior with no penalty.)

And even with cheating at Regular REL, you don't need to “prove” anything. If you understand the shuffling technique being used by the player isn't appropriate for sufficient randomization and your investigation leads you to believe the player knew better, then they are probably someone who needs to be excused from the event. If you truly believe the player was ignorant and didn't know better, then education and/or demonstration of “good shuffling technique” should be desired route in this situation.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Note that if a player has a mana-weaved deck, any number of single cuts does not change the mana weaving. (Also note that aborting the double-nickel half way through, then doing any number of single cuts leaves it unplayably clumped, so if you had only cut he'd have been in trouble).

And you'd be DQ'd instead for Cheating. Recall that if either player knows either deck is stacked in any way and takes advantage of it, whether it's your deck or your opponent's deck, this is considered Cheating. With my player hat on, I really wish it wasn't cause I think it's hilarious to get a cheater eliminated from finals contention by figuring out his cheats and using them against him, but with my judge hat on this is the way it is (and it's probably this way for a very good reason, as awesome as I personally think it would be if it was different).

At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm unfamiliar with the Double Nickel. With the talk of it going on in a couple threads recently, can someone clue me in? Apologies for the minor derail. Thanks.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm unfamiliar with the Double Nickel. With the talk of it going on in a couple threads recently, can someone clue me in? Apologies for the minor derail. Thanks.

Take a sixty-card deck with 20 lands, or a 40-card with 18, and sort them into lands and nonlands. Then put one on top of the other and pile shuffle into five piles. Put the resulting stacks on top of each other and do it again. (Two five-stack pile shuffles: the double nickel.) The result is a perfectly even distribution of lands and spells. No floods, no screw, just perfect mana every time.

You can read more about it here.

Edited Callum Milne (July 16, 2013 02:56:25 AM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'm unfamiliar with the Double Nickel

That was described in this related thread.

Please don't derail this by shifting to the topic of the opponent's actions, if they notice a shady shuffling technique. For one - it's a derailment. And for another - it's being discussed right now among the L4+; I hope to summarize in my JULY blog (available in early August), perhaps sooner.

And you'd be DQ'd instead for Cheating. Recall that if either player knows either deck is stacked in any way and takes advantage of it, whether it's your deck or your opponent's deck, this is considered Cheating

I would not take advantage of it. I said that I would completely randomize his deck (which means doing what my opponent should have done) which would allow me to play a fair match.

Keep in mind that it is also very possible that the player simply doesn't know how to shuffle in a way that actually meets our desired expectations

I keep that in mind. My approach only allows judge to get more evidence and make a proper judgement with all relevant information without any damage to the integrity of the tournament. The only think I risk is that I lose the game which I could have won by DQ. But I'm willing to take this risk in order to catch a cheater and get him DQed and maybe even suspended.

And even with cheating at Regular REL, you don't need to “prove” anything. If you understand the shuffling technique being used by the player isn't appropriate for sufficient randomization and your investigation leads you to believe the player knew better, then they are probably someone who needs to be excused from the event

This is true, but we are not dealing with this situation from a Judge perspective. I am a player, I do not lead the investigation and my opinion is not enough to DQ a player here. As a judge I would of course start investigation during this round. I would not let him possible win a match when he should have been DQed.

Originally posted by David Zalesky:

This is true, but we are not dealing with this situation from a Judge perspective. I am a player, I do not lead the investigation and my opinion is not enough to DQ a player here. As a judge I would of course start investigation during this round. I would not let him possible win a match when he should have been DQed.

My Judge experience is just a month old, but I have an understanding of Regular where I am one of the players that can help with rulings or situations when needed or called. When I play at FNM or Prerelease, my TO knows I am a reliable person to ask an advice and to give help on my own: the goal is to instruct people to play better, both in strategy and sportmanship. My TO possibly doesn't want people to get disqualified (or, even worse, suspended) unless the problem is Serious (as JAR-defined): he has a business to conduct and it involves his customers to have fun and enjoy the game every time they want to come in his shop.

Tl; dr – I believe your perspective is more Competitive related, where I mostly agree with you (save for the point that any round is good for investigations and appropriate penalties, in my opinion).

Edited Stefano Ferrari (July 16, 2013 04:33:42 AM)