Hello,

First, I am not sure whether this is the correct subforum in which to post this question. It seems there isn't a subforum for questions about specific events, so I'll post it here for now.

In watching the coverage of PT-RTR, I have noticed several times players merely cutting their opponent's deck after a search-and-shuffle effect. MTR 3.9 stipulates that: “At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them.” I haven't yet seen a judge step in to advise the players of this requirement–but then, I haven't been watching continuously, so it may be that I simply missed it.

I know it is a tedious rule to enforce, especially with the great number of search effects in Modern, but I try my best to enforce it at any Comp REL event I judge, so I wondered if in fact it is common practice to let it slide.

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (Oct. 21, 2012 02:39:33 PM)

I've always treated the requirement as simply meaning that you can't just tap your opponent's deck without doing anything to it–you have to do something. What exactly that is with it doesn't really matter just as long as you do something–if you want to just cut and let it go at that, you can do that. (However bad an idea that may be.)

Edited Callum Milne (Oct. 21, 2012 02:47:16 PM)

Long ago, “shuffle” was indirectly defined as anything more than a simple cut; a cut was defined - probably because we used to let players cut their own decks after opponent's suffling.  And the definition of a cut was something like “moving one intact segment of the deck to another location in the deck”.  You could take one or more cards from the top and put ‘em on the bottom (most common), or take a number of cards out of the middle and place them on top (or bottom) - also not uncommon.


By default, even performing two cuts, or a cut-like operation that moved more than one segment, constituted a shuffle.

OK, enough with the history lesson.  The point is that the line between ’cut' and ‘shuffle’ is pretty fine, and not currently defined in the rules anyway.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall reading that definition for a long, long time…)

And, to be fair, if Newt is OK with how Aardwolf shuffled his own deck, then Newt is probably also OK with just cutting it afterwards - and we can overlook that small breach.  If Newt thinks Aardwolf should have shuffled better, he can call a judge, or - more likely - just give it a thorough shuffling of his own.  And I'm still OK with that.  Hey, if Aardwolf searches, starts to shuffle, then says “oh, hey, you're gonna shuffle anyway” and presents?  Meh.  Not ideal, no, but at most I'd ask him to do a bit more of his own work…

Just my 2c worth…

d:^D

Thanks for the background info Scott. I briefly searched the MTR and IPG and couldn't find any official definition for “shuffling” or “cutting.”

In the absence of such a definition, my approach has been to hold the opponent to the same standard as the player whose deck is being randomized–without, of course, ever giving him an Insufficient Shuffling warning, as the IPG states that this only applies to players shuffling their own decks. As a rule, I will require at least 5 or 6 mash or riffle shuffles. If I need to step in several times to remind a player to shuffle his opponent's deck, I will then directly instruct him to do so, so that I can give USC-Major for failure to follow a direct instruction if he continues not to do so.

Scott, I can understand your reasoning as to why strict enforcement of this rule isn't really necessary. In a competitive environment, it will usually be in the player's interest to pay attention to his opponent's shuffling and to shuffle the deck himself as an added guarantee of randomization. If that were sufficient, however, then why have the rule in the first place? I feel that the very existence of the rule indicates an underlying purpose which goes beyond protecting the interests of the player: in this case, protection of the integrity of the tournament. In enforcing a stricter requirement for shuffling opponents' decks, we create an environment which promotes player confidence in the system by minimizing the possibility that an error of randomization substantially affects a game.

…it will usually be in the player's interest to pay attention to his opponent's shuffling and to shuffle the deck himself as an added guarantee of randomization. If that were sufficient, however, then why have the rule in the first place?

Time for more history!

Some cultures foster an aversion to shuffling the opponent's deck - as though it's an accusation, or at least not trusting the opponent. Other cultures recognized the need to “keep people honest”, so to speak - and shuffling the opponent's deck was really a cultural phenomenon.

In order to help players overcome the cultural stigma, we added the rule; now, instead of accusing your opponent, you're simply following the rules when you shuffle their deck.

Thanks! – Scott Marshall <scott_j_marshall_jr@yahoo.com>
DCIJUDGE-L NetRep, L5, Denver

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 21, 2012 06:36:33 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

In order to help players overcome the cultural stigma, we added the rule; now, instead of accusing your opponent, you're simply following the rules when you shuffle their deck.

This makes a lot of sense, but does the cultural stigma still prevail today? If it doesn't then why keep the rule? If it does, then the purpose of the rule would again seem to be undermined if we adopt an attitude of relaxed enforcement (indeed, the same could be said of almost all rules). A player who, not wanting to offend his opponent, justifies his choice to shuffle his opponent's deck by saying “I'm only following the rule” will only be taken seriously to the extent that the rule is enforced. If, for the sake of argument, I am of the disposition to take offence at my opponent's choice to shuffle my deck, I will not be assuaged by this justification if I know that he could effectively have chosen not to do so without any repercussion. In effect, I am not likely to accept that the rule is in fact a rule, and will therefore still take offence.

I suppose my ultimate point is that, whatever the purpose or origin of this (or any) rule, I think we are best served if we apply consistent and clear standards. If in fact we want to allow discretionary enforcement, then the rule itself should be indicate this (as in several other cases in Magic it does). On the other hand, if the rule is phrased in mandatory terms, then we should do our best within the guidelines to ensure that it is followed.

In this specific case, assuming there is still a need to overcome cultural stigma, I would keep the rule in place for Competitive and Professional REL events, but add an extra clause stipulating that the Head Judge shall have discretion to determine what level of shuffling will be sufficient to satisfy this rule, and that he shall announce this at the beginning of the tournament. This way, Head Judges in areas where cultural stigma is high have the power to enforce the rule more strictly, thereby ensuring that the stigma is overcome. Conversely, Head Judges in areas where the stigma is low and where it is already common practice for players to shuffle their opponents' decks anyway can relax the enforcement of the rule, because strict enforcement is not necessary. Of course, this entrusts responsibility to the Head Judge to determine what level of stigma prevails in his area, but I think that anyone competent to Head Judge a Competitive REL event (in practice L2s and experienced L1s) will be sufficiently connected to their local community to be able to gauge this accurately. It would also mean that we would need to educate judges about their new role in exercising this discretion, but I don't believe that would present a substantial obstacle to this change.

Ok, it has been explained a couple of times why the rule is there. And it seems clear that you either want the rule removed or a stronger enforcement of the rule. I think you are missing the point here. Judges shouldn't be going around telling players that they haven't shuffled their opponent's deck enough. They are not responsible for randomizing their opponent's deck. The Insufficient Shuffling penalty only applies to your own deck, not your opponent's. The rule is there to encourage players to shuffle their opponent's deck. It is there for the reason Scott has mentioned. If judges want to encourage players to shuffle their opponent's decks more, I see no problem with this, but it is for their own benefit, not to enforce the rule. Hopefully this puts an end to the issue.

Shawn

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

Ok, it has been explained a couple of times why the rule is there. And it seems clear that you either want the rule removed or a stronger enforcement of the rule.

With respect, that is not quite an accurate summary of my position. In the final paragraph of my previous post, I described how the rule might be altered in such a way as to preserve its substance where it is necessary to do so, whilst also allowing for it to be relaxed where strict enforcement serves no purpose. The crux of my argument is not that the rule should either be removed or strictly enforced, but that the level of enforcement should both correspond to the text of the rule as written and also be proportionate to the aims which the rule seeks to achieve.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

I think you are missing the point here. Judges shouldn't be going around telling players that they haven't shuffled their opponent's deck enough. They are not responsible for randomizing their opponent's deck. The Insufficient Shuffling penalty only applies to your own deck, not your opponent's.

I have already acknowledged (in my second post) that Insufficient Shuffling does not apply to players shuffling their opponents' decks. To that extent, I agree that there is nothing in the text of the rules which holds players responsible for randomizing their opponents' decks. MTR 3.9 does, however, require that they shuffle their opponents' decks, and in the absence of any other definition of “shuffle,” using the definition of “randomization” (the most closely analogous definition to be found in the rules) is not an unreasonable option, provided one doesn't go on to make the mistake of applying the Insufficient Shuffling penalty. If, as you say, it is incorrect to apply this standard to opponents–and given Scott's explanation of the purpose of the rule, I have conceded that this will be the case in many places–then I think it is reasonable to suggest that the rule be either clarified to indicate what standard is to be used, or else (my proposal) modified to give Head Judges discretion in the matter, with the ability to take the local level of social stigma attached to shuffling opponents' decks into account.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

The rule is there to encourage players to shuffle their opponent's deck. It is there for the reason Scott has mentioned. If judges want to encourage players to shuffle their opponent's decks more, I see no problem with this, but it is for their own benefit, not to enforce the rule. Hopefully this puts an end to the issue.

On this point, is it necessary to call for an end to the issue? I find that discussion so far has been quite enlightening: since my first post, I have learned more about the origin and underlying purpose of the rule in question, and I have gained a new perspective on how to approach it in future. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no room for further discussion. You state that the rule is there for the reason Scott mentioned, but as I argued in my last post, whilst this reason makes a great deal of sense it also suffers from some flaws given the rule's current formulation: in cultures where we want the rule to apply to prevent social stigma, lax enforcement will undermine its effect, and in cultures where we don't need it because there isn't social stigma, strict enforcement is tedious and intrusive. I therefore think that there is still scope for discussion on how this can be rectified; I have already proposed a possible solution, but it too is not without its faults, and I would be interested to hear more input on the matter. To that end, I think calling for an end to the issue is premature.

As a Head Judge, I'm not particular fond of telling any player what level of shuffling is sufficient when it comes to shuffling their opponent's deck. More importantly, if this seems to be an issue, then I prefer to simply educate players directly rather than create a situation that requires me to potentially step in with an infraction later on.

Example: Once the Head Judge has “defined” shuffling is sufficient when it comes to how the player shuffles their opponent's deck, any failure to do so becomes an infraction (Failure to Follow Official Announcements). Or, even if done directly, Unsporting Conduct–Major. While there is a need in some situations to make clear to players to do certain things and/or follow instructions, getting into the fine point becomes burdensome for enforcement.

More importantly, specifying any level of shuffling is “sufficient” is a tacit acknowledgement that some particular method of shuffling or number of repetitions of shuffling makes everything “okay”. Since the standard we want is “sufficient randomization”, getting into the specifics of what method is okay, or how many times, or even what the opponent is doing is okay… Well, I think it sends a message to the community that overlooks the issue when it comes to investigation of “insufficient randomization”. We don't necessarily get into one particular piece of the process, but rather look on the entire procedure that got us to the end point.

Lastly, I'm not particular fond of formalizing every particular behavior or even documenting specific things. I think it is fair to keep only what is absolutely necessary in policy and documented in the MTR or MIPG, and leave others “as necessary” when it comes to some situations. Otherwise we risk becoming overly technical or even contradicting ourselves in our own documents. Perhaps not with this situation, but it is not an approach I relish when it comes to the policy documents. The game is already pretty complicated without getting into some really fine points in the MTR.

In this case, if players aren't shuffling their opponent's decks, reminding them of that opportunity should be sufficient in most cases. I don't see a need to have a clause in the MTR for it; if the Head Judge deems it necessary, then he or she can remind players during the pre-event announcements.

The way I look at it, you have sufficiently shuffled your opponents deck when you feel you have sufficiently shuffled your opponents deck. Where as when you shuffle your own deck the rules are there to make sure you are shuffling enough this is there to make sure you feel happy with how much your opponent shuffled, I seen players fully shuffle one opponents deck while only cutting another due to the differing amounts of shuffling between players (one only does a couple of riffles while the other did 6-7 riffles).

I see this rule being as Scott said “this is a way for you to have peace of mind while being ”within the rules“” so when your happy that you've done enough then the deck has been sufficiently shuffled.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Gareth Tanner <
forum-1648@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I seen players fully shuffle one opponents deck while only cutting another
> due to the differing amounts of shuffling between players (one only does a
> couple of riffles while the other did 6-7 riffles).


This sounds a lot more like a player who should be educated to call a judge
when their opponent isn't sufficiently randomising. The shuffling of your
opponents deck is meant to be about discouraging deck manipulation not
removing the responsibility from the players to shuffle their own deck.

The rule requires shuffling to assist in communities and cultures that feel that shuffling their opponent's deck is an accusation that you do not trust your opponent. Requiring a shuffle allows those communities and cultures to point at the rules and say “I do trust you but this rule says I have to shuffle”.

What constitutes a shuffle? Pretty sure we could get into a huge amount of philosophical discussion about this, so I don't a) see the point and b) see any reason to include a definition in the MTR so that individuals can determine what constitutes a shuffle for their own devices.

My position is that as long as an opponent has done something that has changed the deck it's fine. That includes cutting, pile “shuffling” and mash/riffle shuffling.

We shouldn't be forcing either our own personal standards on what an opponent should constitute a shuffle. The only thing we should be forcing onto players is that they sufficiently randomise their own deck before presenting. How they accomplish this should also largely be irrelevant as long as it isn't disruptive to other aspects of an event.

Greetings…

I have never attempted to define what a “shuffle” is - except regarding “Insufficient Shuffling”.
Beyond that, I have always simply indicated that the opponent must “manipulate the deck in some fashion” to satisfy the “shuffle” requirement of the rules.

So - if the opponent wishes to “cut” the deck and consider it a “shuffle”, who am I to argue against it?

Also, “tapping” the deck is (in my opinion) tantamount to “shuffling zero times” (or rather, “I acknowledge my right to shuffle the deck and wish not to exercise it.”) A sentence that I've heard from several of my mentors: “Do I want to be the judge to issue this penalty many, many times (since this ”offense“ occurs more times than I can count”) - when there is no real advantage gained nor lost?

As long as the players know (and we reinforce the knowledge) that they can (and should) call for a judge if they feel that their opponent has not “sufficiently shuffled”, then what they do after the deck is presented is pretty much moot.

Until that time…

Just to add into the thought pool: Why do we want players to shuffle their opponent's decks? To this, I find the answer as we all know it from the MIPG in randomization. The deck should be in a state where no player has any information of any part of the deck after randomization.

Or course, the primary application for this rule is at the beginning of every game, where the players truly try for a completely random deck. With the exception being Regular events like FNM, I rarely see players simply cut a deck at the beginning of a game.

So this brings up another question: Why should a deck need to be “less randomized” during a game than directly prior to it? This starts to enter the realm of Cheating. For instance, player A is shuffling his deck after a Ponder. From prior knowledge of Player B's tendency to “tap” the deck, player A peeks at certain cards while he's shuffling and puts the card he desires on top. Player B taps, and player A gets his card. No one is any the wiser.

Due to this, I find that shuffling your opponent's deck is, indeed, necessary to protect tournament integrity. Scott makes a good point of shuffling being an accusation in some points of view, and it should be a rule to overcome this barrier. In the end, by refusing to shuffle your opponent's deck, no matter how well they seem to have shuffled, the only way to ensure true randomization is to have someone other than the deck's owner modify the deck as if the one shuffling it knew the identity of each card's location.

Any thoughts on this? I find this matter very intriguing. I would also like to further talk about the issue of “pointing out every last person who just cuts,” as I agree that this is a very tiring matter, especially in 1,000+ player tournaments.

A few history lessons about tournaments and shuffling:
Lesson 1–Long long ago, the DCI defined a shuffle as at least three riffle shuffles. This resulted in people riffle shuffling exactly three times and then stopping because they knew that was minimally disruptive to the order of the deck (presumably having set the order previously).

Lesson learned: Specific details on the manner in which a deck should be randomized set a baseline that would then be abused. Specifics were eliminated.

Lesson 2–For a long time, the procedure for randomization required a player to shuffle, then an opponent could shuffle or cut the deck, and the player could then cut his or her deck exactly one time if an opponent chose to shuffle. Given that the reason for opponents shuffling deck was to reduce the potential for card manipulation, ending the procedure with an opportunity for manipulation (a cut) seemed a poor idea.

Lesson learned: If you're trying to stop card manipulation, then don't let people manipulate cards. The final cut was eventually eliminated.