Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Yes, we prefer that they notify a judge if they saw something suspicious - but what's the threshold for that? what if you just heard from others “don't trust that guy's shuffles!”, and you want to be safe? what if you caught a glimpse of something, but can't describe it - and thus can't expect a judge to detect anything by looking at the deck? There's just so many reasons why we chose to remove that example, and - at that time - make it clear that this is not an infraction, much less a DQ.

So, I think part of the confusion has to do with the meaning of “not an infraction.”

Isaac's second point, IMHO, is a good one. Even with the example removed, the three-pile shuffle does appear to fit exactly into the IPG definition of cheating: a player is knowingly ignoring a rule in the MTR to gain an advantage over an opponent.

However, Uncle Scott, I don't believe that you or Toby are arguing against that point at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your intent is to say that any violations that may occur here are unenforceable. We cannot reliably identify when the three-pile shuffle would be an infraction, so we have to treat it as a non-infraction even if technically in some cases an infraction may have occurred.

Does that sound right?

That's close, Eli, but not quite. I do fully intend to communicate the message that doing a 3-pile shuffle is NOT an infraction, even if you do it because you're suspicious.

I think we're ignoring one of the key points, from the previous thread:

But performing an otherwise legal action - i.e., the 3-pile shuffle - doesn't become illegal because of what you suspect (or even know) your opponent did while shuffling.

When the (then) L4s & L5s discussed this, that was the sticking point - we can't DQ someone for a legal action, just because they *might* have actually seen what they only *think* they saw. (And good luck proving guilt in those situations, anyway!)

While it's true that we don't consider pile shuffling alone to be sufficient, it isn't an invalid method - esp. if there are 7 (or 11, 13, or any larger prime number) piles. However, we are not going to formally define shuffles, as requested. We had a definition at one time, and you probably won't like it much (this is from memory, not an exact quote):

A cut is moving any one section of the deck to either the top or bottom of the rest of the deck; any other changes to the order of the deck is considered a shuffle.

So that included moving the middle third out of the deck, and putting it on top or bottom - but if you just put the top and bottom cards in the deck somewhere else, that counted as a shuffle. Not very specific, and falls well short of the concept of sufficient shuffling.

But, please, do NOT cast Animate Dead on the “what's sufficient shuffling” topic. I apologize to those who haven't been around long enough to remember any of the previous threads on that topic - but they just never end (and don't really get us anywhere).

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (May 31, 2016 12:22:39 PM)

“Doing the 3-pile shuffle” is not illegal. “Not notifying the judge”,
however, still is (by the book, if not by ‘O’ policy only known by those
who pay attention to the forums and other public releases). Perhaps that
sentence in MTR 3.9 should be taken out of the next iteration of the MTR
now that we no longer expect that players *must* do so.

2016-05-31 13:23 GMT-04:00 Scott Marshall <

Originally posted by MTR 3.9:

If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge.

Dominik, which infraction applies if a player doesn't comply with that rule, from the MTR? (hint: there isn't one, because that's not an infraction)

This thread reinforces the fact that policy can be misunderstood, no matter how carefully we write it - esp. as we add complexity, and thus feed confusion created by combining phrases that we never really intended to be combined, or at least not in the manner occurring.

And that's why Toby writes blog posts, and I provide ‘O’fficial answers, and pretty much all the L3s make an effort to educate on the finer points.

And, just like each previous iteration … I think this thread has come to a complete ending.

d:^D