Cheating in a tournament, the best fetch tutor that you have ever seen

[kiwi]

One famous spanish player has been recorded doing this in the feature match of a tournament.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lIGPsvRPaRs

In conclusion you always MUST shuffle your opponent's deck

[Shawon]

In conclusion you always MUST shuffle cut your opponent's deck

[Koby]

True story: in professional play you MUST shuffle your opponent's deck.

Can anyone translate the text? I don't speak Spanish fluently enough to understand the context.

[mort-]

Well.. that is pretty amazing executed.

[Megadeus]

God damn that was a slick cheat. At normal speed it is super difficult to catch. I guess he knew his opponent doesn't cut.

[The Treefolk Master]

True story: in professional play you MUST shuffle your opponent's deck.

Can anyone translate the text? I don't speak Spanish fluently enough to understand the context.

Here you go. These are in order as the appear on screen. If there's a discordance concerning number of captions/number of translations; let me know as I probably missed one.

First, lets see the play in real time.

Look at all the handling involved to find a single Underground sea in a deck that just plays that land and runs 4 copies.

Lets watch it again.

Look at how he's sliding cards from behind until he finds a specific card. Then he moves cards from his left to his right hand through the front of the deck. (Note: You'll get this when you watch it. There's no simple way to translate it; or at least I couldn't think of any).

By doing this, he leaves on top the last card he went through (the one he spent a while looking at).

Lets watch it again.

And again... (Zooms in).

Now, lets look at the way he continues to shuffle. We can see how he does now shuffle the cards on top of the deck.

The card is still on top of the deck.

Now look at how he cuts the deck in order to leave on top the card that was on top.

Have you caught the trick? Lets watch it again.

If you look closely, instead of picking up the cards on top (in order to cut), he takes the centre of the deck.

If we pause here we can see the empty space he makes by taking from the centre.

And, not surprisingly, after stacking his deck turn 1, he goes off turn 2.

As an extra, I'm leaving a part of another of his games, where he does combo without the need to cheat.

You'l see how he does not slide cards through the front and it takes him one second to find the Underground Sea.

In addition to this, he makes his opponent cut to show that he is a legitimate, law abiding dude.

Curious result: The 25% chance this deck has of comboing turn 2 goes through the roof whenever Alex is playing it.

We now know why :)

//

[apple713]

was this person caught cheating in the tournament or just after the fact?

What was his consequence?

Who was it?



Sidenote, I am a big advocate of always cutting my opponents deck but i do not shuffle out of respect for their cards. This is the perfect example of why a CUT will suffice and shuffling is not needed. If you cut his deck the card he desperatly cheated for is now not going to be drawn and is somewhere in the middle, he screws himself. If you shuffle his deck he has a chance to draw it again and isnt punished for cheating.

So..... stop picking up my $4,000 deck and shuffling it.

[sauce]

So..... stop picking up my $4,000 deck and shuffling it.


+1

[Hardcore]

-1


You got Perfect Fit AND ordinary sleves. You can take some shuffling, dudes. Besides it is not as shuffling did not existed when you bought the cards. In short; you know the rules and choose to play the game. Live with your decision.

[Julian23]

Albeit from the Cheating, he also didn't even hardly shuffle his deck. I mean, Cheating by stacking your deck is one thing and sometimes rather hard to catch. But not shuffling your deck, what was wrong with his opponent? Another thing is the pace at which he's playing makes me think that he's one of the guys that never asks for priority of whether something resolves. I used to hate that; nowadays I just have them run into a landslide of warnings if they continue playing that way.

Also, is this Alex Del Valle?

[lordofthepit]

What was the deal with the ANT player who got kicked out of BoM (or Strasbourg, I forget) for stacking his deck?

[apple713]

-1


You got Perfect Fit AND ordinary sleves. You can take some shuffling, dudes. Besides it is not as shuffling did not existed when you bought the cards. In short; you know the rules and choose to play the game. Live with your decision.

im sure my cards can take the shuffling i put them through but not what everyone else puts them through. Not to mention its a huge waste of time. When so many games go to time its a no brainer that one of the main reasons other than slow decks is shuffling.

If i suffle my deck when i use a fetchland and then my opponent shuffles it its been shuffled twice...if this practice continues ever time a shuffle effect occurs its nuts consider the following situation and this is not even the most shuffle effects that could happen: stoneblade vs jund

turn 1: fetch, ponder (shuffle)

oppt turn 1: fetch and DRS

t2: fetch SFM

oppt t2: fetch , liliana

so in 2 turns by both players 6 shuffle effects have happened meaning decks have been shuffled 12 times. Lets say it takes 20 seconds to shuffle, thats 4 minutes that have been wasted in the first 2 turns just to shuffle. 4 minutes doesnt seem like a lot but we are 2 turns into the first game. Im sure more fetchlands will be drawn and other shuffle effects will take place but over the course of 3 games thats 12 minutes of time lost. Just cut the deck and move on with the game.

[kiblast]

Also, is this Alex Del Valle?

Yep.

[herbig]

This isn't masterfully executed at all, it looks trivially easy to do.

[monovfox]

What was the deal with the ANT player who got kicked out of BoM (or Strasbourg, I forget) for stacking his deck?

I am also sad I didn't hear more about this.

I had a similar experience with a Shardless BUG player at the Deals open. I didn't realize it until later. I guess having food poisoning didn't help.

[TsumiBand]

-1


You got Perfect Fit AND ordinary sleves. You can take some shuffling, dudes. Besides it is not as shuffling did not existed when you bought the cards. In short; you know the rules and choose to play the game. Live with your decision.

Correct!




http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Tournament_Rules_PDF1.pdf

3.9 Card Shuffling

Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.

Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than the opponent; this request will be honored only at a judge’s discretion.

If a player has had the opportunity to see any of the card faces of the deck being shuffled, the deck is no longer considered randomized and must be randomized again.

At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them. The Head Judge can require this at Regular REL tournaments as well.


After a certain point, players are required to shuffle. In either event, you're able to ask a judge/the Head Judge to handle this arduous, nerve-wracking, investment-damaging process.

Remembering this, knowing it will happen to your deck, and knowing you will perform similar actions to your opponent's deck, will prevent the OP's situation from occurring. Its as simple as that.

[apple713]

Correct!



After a certain point, players are required to shuffle. In either event, you're able to ask a judge/the Head Judge to handle this arduous, nerve-wracking, investment-damaging process.

Remembering this, knowing it will happen to your deck, and knowing you will perform similar actions to your opponent's deck, will prevent the OP's situation from occurring. Its as simple as that.

what is simple is cutting the deck. If you feel that is sufficient it is all you are required to do. They should take the option away from players and just require a cut which randomizes draws all the same.

[Koby]

what is simple is cutting the deck. If you feel that is sufficient it is all you are required to do. They should take the option away from players and just require a cut which randomizes draws all the same.

You should stop before you embarrass yourself. A cut is not a randomizing method. The point of shuffling is to remove any knowledge of any known location of particular cards. A cut does not achieve this.

If you dont want your cards damage in the course of a tournament then dont play them in tournaments. Simple as that!

[mini1337s]

what is simple is cutting the deck. If you feel that is sufficient it is all you are required to do. They should take the option away from players and just require a cut which randomizes draws all the same.

3.9 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.
Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than the opponent; this request will be honored only at a judge’s discretion.
If a player has had the opportunity to see any of the card faces of the deck being shuffled, the deck is no longer considered randomized and must be randomized again.
At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them. The Head Judge can require this at Regular REL tournaments as well.

[Kap'n Cook]

Sorry for semi-derailing the original topic.

What happens if at the beginning of the game your opponent is shuffling your deck and accidentally flips a card from your deck? Flipping archetype defining cards like golgari-grave troll, show and tell, ad nauseum etc. puts the opponent at a competitive advantage. What is the result?

[apple713]

You should stop before you embarrass yourself. A cut is not a randomizing method. The point of shuffling is to remove any knowledge of any known location of particular cards. A cut does not achieve this.

If you dont want your cards damage in the course of a tournament then dont play them in tournaments. Simple as that!

no a cut alone is not a shuffle, but if I shuffle my deck and present it to my opponent, it should be randomized. They should then only need to cut the deck to prevent cheating or prevent me from knowing the order of cards in my deck.

Also if you can stack your deck and memorize the position of all 60 cards after I cut it you need to be doing something better with your photographic memory than magic.



3.9 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.
Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than the opponent; this request will be honored only at a judge’s discretion.
If a player has had the opportunity to see any of the card faces of the deck being shuffled, the deck is no longer considered randomized and must be randomized again.
At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them. The Head Judge can require this at Regular REL tournaments as well.

Thanks for that I got it the first time i read the rule book. This has also been posted in several posts around the forums.

"The opponent may shuffle additionally. " this is typically done by cutting the deck.

"At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them." I would imagine a cut would be sufficient here unless you have a photographic memory like koby

[Dan Turner]

"At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them." I would imagine a cut would be sufficient here unless you have a photographic memory like koby

A cut is not a shuffle.

Cut
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_(cards))
Shuffle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffle)

[cdr]

A rarity, but Magic Fanatic is absolutely correct - a cut is not a shuffle. Cuts are very susceptible to deck stacking. In a competitive tournament, you should be shuffling at least enough to guard against basic stacking every time your opponent handles his deck. If you're still refusing to shuffle, at least cut using a Scarne cut - pull the middle of the deck out and put it on top of the top+bottom.

[mini1337s]

Thanks for that I got it the first time i read the rule book. This has also been posted in several posts around the forums.

"The opponent may shuffle additionally. " this is typically done by cutting the deck.

"At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them." I would imagine a cut would be sufficient here unless you have a photographic memory like koby
Clearly you didn't, because you seem to think a cut is adequate. You quoted the exact part that proves you are wrong ("At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them.") and go on to say that a cut is sufficient.
If you can't deal with people touching your cards, go play Magic Online.

[Julian23]

What happens if at the beginning of the game your opponent is shuffling your deck and accidentally flips a card from your deck? Flipping archetype defining cards like golgari-grave troll, show and tell, ad nauseum etc. puts the opponent at a competitive advantage. What is the result?

Assuming it was done by accident, he will receive a warning.

At BoM 7 a friend of mine had his entire sideboard looked at before the game started because his opponent got their deckboxes confused, even for that, the penalty is just a warning.

[kiwi]

He did this fetch tutor while he was playing in one round of a tournament and in that moment no one saw it.

The fetchland tutor was discovered after the tournament, reviewing the video in a computer.

The tournament was two weeks ago, no consequences yet, but of course some judges are studing the video.

In some scenarios is very difficult to catch these kind of tricks, and if your opponent is good including he can misdirecting your attetion.

[apple713]

A rarity, but Magic Fanatic is absolutely correct - a cut is not a shuffle. Cuts are very susceptible to deck stacking. In a competitive tournament, you should be shuffling at least enough to guard against basic stacking every time your opponent handles his deck. If you're still refusing to shuffle, at least cut using a Scarne cut - pull the middle of the deck out and put it on top of the top+bottom.

A cut is literally not a shuffle Correct. However, Regardless of the action taken, cut or shuffle, they both result in "Randomization" "Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck".

How is an opponent going to stack his deck when he has no idea where or how i will cut his deck?

[L0cke]

A cut is literally not a shuffle Correct. However, Regardless of the action taken, cut or shuffle, they both result in "Randomization" "Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck".

How is an opponent going to stack his deck when he has no idea where or how i will cut his deck?

Its quite simple actually. Lets say you have 4 cards, any one of which you want. You can shuffle so they are evenly spaced out in the deck, and even if you cut (once, or even twice in the cursory fashion most people do), they will still be mostly evenly spaced out in the deck. So then a couple cantrips will be much more likely to hit that card. It becomes even easier if you need one of 8 cards, like in storm, where an Infernal Tutor or Burning Wish will suffice. On turn one, if you fetch, there fifty one or fifty two cards remaining in your deck, and if your cards are approximately evenly spaced you WILL see one of those cards in the 6-8 cards, which is a better guarantee than completely random. Its a small percentages sort of thing, but if a lot of money is on the line, improving consistency a little bit goes a long way. Suddenly your deck is not random any more, you know that exactly one of the card you need will come up relatively soon from your deck, because anywhere your opponent chooses to cut it puts the card you need near the top. Similarly, imagine you are playing any redundant combo deck, like High Tide or Solidarity. You have a High Tide, but you need another untap effect. Most of those decks run 6-12 of those between Turnabout, Reset, Time Spiral, and Snapcaster on something from above. You fetch, and shift it so that each of the ten or so targets are evenly spaced out. You have an impulse or Brainstorm in hand. That turn, or the next it is almost 100% that you can draw it with a single impulse, or a preordain+brainstorm, even if your opponent cuts your deck at any point because no untap effect is more than 5ish cards from the next. It takes the cheater barely any extra time to do this, maybe a handful of seconds, and if you just cut, even a couple times, they have gained a significant advantage over you by making their deck more consistent than it should be naturally. Over a ten round tournament, these little extra benefits add up enough to help offset the randomness inherent in Magic, making high placement easier for the person willing to do so.

[JDK]

Sidenote, I am a big advocate of always cutting my opponents deck but i do not shuffle out of respect for their cards. This is the perfect example of why a CUT will suffice and shuffling is not needed. If you cut his deck the card he desperatly cheated for is now not going to be drawn and is somewhere in the middle, he screws himself. If you shuffle his deck he has a chance to draw it again and isnt punished for cheating.

So..... stop picking up my $4,000 deck and shuffling it.
You are playing a card game, invested 4k bucks in a single deck and yet you fail to see how cutting isn't sufficient to prevent stacking?

Look at what L0cke wrote and take a deep breath before and afterwards. Or even simplier: If I stack four cards around the middle of my deck (similar to what the guy in the video did), and you cut around the middle, I will still see one of those cards with a reasonable high chance in the next few draws.

Sure, there are some assholes or people just not caring about the value who will try to riffle the shit out of your cards, but as a human being you can reason with them. Ask them to not riffle your deck, as there are other methods to achieve the same result. If they still go rough on your deck, call a judge. Damaging cards is against the rules.

[kombatkiwi]

no player can have any information

You answered your own question basically
If my deck is stacked in even a rudimentary way I can still have a lot of useful information about the arrangement of the cards if all you do is split it at one spot.

[TsumiBand]

A shuffle is goddamned not the same thing as a cut. This is not the same as arguing that a square is a rectangle. They are not regarded as different forms of the same action. The rules treat them as separate terms. You see 'shuffle or cut' paired in times when either/or is acceptable, and you see them as standalone terms when only one is necessary or acceptable. Try simply cutting your deck after a Ponder instead of shuffling, and see how your opponent feels about that.

If you're worried about the integrity of your deck, the head judge can shuffle for your opponent - at their discretion. Meaning, if you're "that guy", then after a while you probably run the risk of being denied that privilege, because my guess is that a head judge could at any given time have more pressing matters to attend to. In fact, if it were me being summoned to come shuffle a deck every time there's a tutor or fetch or other random-ass reason to do it, I would probably be considering issuing a Slow Play.

I mean what else is there to say. It's in the rules. Swapping cutting for shuffling is not listed as an acceptable shortcut. How do you read the rules and go, "Oh, it says shuffling. I bet they mean cutting. Yeah. Makes sense." You don't want people to shuffle your cards, act like every other germophobic collector and have your cards framed.

[cdr]

Among other things, there are also card-bending tricks that can cause an unsuspecting person to cut to the spot you want them to a reliable amount of the time. Especially easy to do with unsleeved 40 card limited decks.

Even a bad shuffle will put the kibosh on most any deck stacking tricks; a cut won't necessarily.

[bfeingersh]

Sorry to everyone who doesn't want me (as your opponent) shuffling your deck. I'm going to do it. It's not going to hurt, I shuffle my own deck and I care about the condition of my cards probably as much as you. Nothing personal.

[dontbiteitholmes]

what is simple is cutting the deck. If you feel that is sufficient it is all you are required to do. They should take the option away from players and just require a cut which randomizes draws all the same.

Except it doesn't. Just accept that you are wrong on this one. If I know you are going to cut my deck and not shuffle it would be very easy for me to casually work some cards I DON'T ever want to draw into spots where you are not going to cut to them. Example, say you are playing ANT and I realize this on your first turn. When I crack a fetch my first turn it would be very easy to work the Swords to Plowshares in my deck to a combination of the very top and very bottom and unless you cut my deck one card deep or to the very bottom, I would never draw the dead cards.

I'm sure I'm not the only person to ever think about this and fairly certain it happens to bad players who make it clear they only cut opponents decks from time to time.

Also shuffling when the deck is first presented is crucial. A LOT of bad players mana weave or semi-stack their weak ass combos.

[Deviruchi]

"Every Fetchland your enemy plays can be a Vampiric Tutor so make sure you Counterspell it by shuffling his deck."

These were the words I heard about 10 years ago. I always shuffle decks when I should and I won't stop. It is a habit. I don't care if my friends are a bit offended that I do it every time. I don't waste much time and I care about valuable decks. Also you should keep your eyes on opponents hands when he/she is shuffling. Strange things may happen when you look around.

[JDK]

By the way....what happened to the guy who stacked his deck similar to this one at the last WMC (?). Iirc he was one of the Puerto Ricans.

[Hof]

At higher REL, since players are required to shuffle opponent's deck anyway, why does the player has to shuffle it himself first? Double shuffling seems redundant, considering that a "shuffle" is well defined in the rules, and consequently either one of those two shuffles should be sufficient for randomization. If not, there has been a rules violation.

There is a lot of shuffling in Legacy, and it is kind of annoying, so I think it is fair to ask if shortcuts are possible.

[Julian23]

By the way....what happened to the guy who stacked his deck similar to this one at the last WMC (?). Iirc he was one of the Puerto Ricans.

Don't know. Hall of Famine eligibility?

[JDK]

There could be a known portion of the deck (e.g. Clique, Counterbalance, Top, Submerge etc). So it makes sense to shuffle twice.

[JanoschEausH]

What happens if my opponent riffle shuffles my deck and i ask him to shuffle it in another way because i don't want my cards to get damaged, but he refuses to do so? Can i ask a judge then - and will he receive some sort of warning if he still riffle shuffles afterwards when the judge is gone? Or do i have to accept that some monkey on steroids is bending my cards as hell?

[jandax]

Following the rules, you'd be best by asking a judge to randomize your deck because the mongol infront of you refuses to handle your property as you respectfully asked him. Since it's still hypothetical, this situation, I'd say a Judge can't make the guy shuffle a certain way but would instead honor your request to shuffle your deck. But in reality, we're Legacy players and we all know the value of our stacks of cards. When someone asks (probably before presenting) to not riffle their cards, their opponent doesn't. It just doesn't happen.

[nedleeds]

The rules are so contradictory in this area.

a) You are required to present a randomized deck. Doing otherwise is a violation.

b) You are required to manipulate your opponents now randomized deck.

I think you should always have last cut on your deck. That guy can put a dead draw on top of your deck as easily as he can Vampiric during his fetch.

Really if your deck is randomized then the opponent shuffling is a waste of valuable game time. If you haven't then a judge should be called. I understand the rule is a deterrent but I don't think it really deters those who really want to cheat.

[Julian23]

It's much easier to require players to shuffle their opponent's decks than to actually catch a dexterous cheater doing fake-shuffling. I'm fine with missing out on a very little amount of time here. Someone mentioned 20 seconds for each shuffle of the opponent's deck during the game (for SFM, Fetches etc.). First, 20 seconds is already stretching it. Look at your watch and find out how long 20 seconds actually are. I can easily shotgun shuffle my opponent's deck 5 times and do 3 cuts afterwards in less than 10 seconds. And second, it's not like games come to a complete halt everytime someone has to shuffle their opponent's deck. If you're a good player you're already using the time to ponder or even make your next play. So basically, for every shuffle effect there's effectively only 5-10 seconds, I believe. It's annoying always having to shuffle, sure, but its such an integral part of the game, it's not going away.

And then there's still:
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/zen/45.jpg

Kindly note how he skillfully gets TWO counters of a single Green Sun's Zenith.



Still: Last year, we had someone notable from the European Legacy scene banned for 2 years. Among other things, it was discovered that he kept shuffling white-bordered cards (=Lands) to his opponents top of the deck wehenever getting the final shuffle/cut. Because people grew suspicious, a judge was called to observe the whole situation and confirmed that he was in fact getting a glimpse on the cards.

I have a strong feeling people are calling judges not nearly often enough. I'm guilty of this myself for smaller tournaments, but whenever I put in 200€ to get to a GP/BoM, rest assured that I will be in your face about any kind of shady action. A lot of people think players should be able to sort things out by themselves but I disagree.

[saspook]

I think you should always have last cut on your deck. That guy can put a dead draw on top of your deck as easily as he can Vampiric during his fetch.


The opponent has a valid reason for looking at the faces of the cards in his own deck prior to shuffling, and even if you shuffle his deck, he could be able to track one card to cut near the top or otherwise manipulate a cut based on the sleeve. It is much harder (although not impossible) for the opponent to look at the face of your cards.

[HammafistRoob]

Everybody on the source has to be right 100% of the time huh?

What apple means is that if your opponent sufficiently randomized their deck, all you should need is a cut. If you think they didn't make an honest attempt at proper randomization, call a judge. NEVER try to "unstack" their deck by shuffling. That is also technically cheating.

I like to mix it up when playing. I've done tons of research on different ways to manipulate shuffles/stack decks. The best cheaters can even prepare for you to shuffle their deck. This is why I shuffle their deck before the match, then maybe I don't even cut after they fetch. But next time they fetch I'm shuffling. If you always "riffle" or "mash" shuffle three times and hand them their deck back, you seriously think they can't take that into account? NEVER be predictable with your shuffling habits.

[apple713]

The rules are so contradictory in this area.

a) You are required to present a randomized deck. Doing otherwise is a violation.

b) You are required to manipulate your opponents now randomized deck.

I think you should always have last cut on your deck. That guy can put a dead draw on top of your deck as easily as he can Vampiric during his fetch.

Really if your deck is randomized then the opponent shuffling is a waste of valuable game time. If you haven't then a judge should be called. I understand the rule is a deterrent but I don't think it really deters those who really want to cheat.

There should definatly be a stronger punishment for cheating. Lifetime bann is suitable for players clearly caught intentionally cheating in anyway.


Everybody on the source has to be right 100% of the time huh?

What apple means is that if your opponent sufficiently randomized their deck, all you should need is a cut. If you think they didn't make an honest attempt at proper randomization, call a judge. NEVER try to "unstack" their deck by shuffling. That is also technically cheating.

I like to mix it up when playing. I've done tons of research on different ways to manipulate shuffles/stack decks. The best cheaters can even prepare for you to shuffle their deck.

+1

[Tammit67]

There should definatly be a stronger punishment for cheating. Lifetime bann is suitable for players clearly caught intentionally cheating in anyway.

What about some 12 year old at his second FNM?

[apple713]

What about some 12 year old at his second FNM?

The rule should be enforced at competetive REL. If the player is old enough to know he is competing he is old enough to know that cheating is wrong and should get the ban hammer!

so no not FNM

[lordofthepit]

What about some 12 year old at his second FNM?

Ban until 18?

[apple713]

Ban until 18?

+1

[Finn]

I have never liked the rule that you have to shuffle your opponent's deck. I am all thumbs and constantly afraid that I am going to flip a card over, thus subjecting myself to a violation purely by lack of coordination. I only cut because of this, never shuffle. I don't even do a complete cut, but rather poker style where you leave the second half to the dealer. As you can imagine, I am hawkish about watching my opponent's hands while he shuffles, but this guy on the video was prepared in a way I may have fallen victim to had I not cut him. The matte cards are a little better, but I am so non-dextrous that I flip those over as well. So I don't riffle at all. I don't know if it is legal to call a judge to shuffle for you, but I don't see that option and I don't see calling one every game anyway. I have never had a problem, but the ground is fertile for plenty of them.

Does anyone know of a simple solution for this issue?

[Holly]

Problem is.. your friend cheated this way aswell..

[TsumiBand]

Some friends of mine went to a tournament out of state where some guys were mana weaving (evenly distributing one land for every two spells). One of my friends had a fantastic answer when he played one of them and they presented - he pile shuffled the guy's deck in three piles and gave it back to the guy. It took the mana weaver two mulligans to figure out he should just shuffle his deck.

I cannot substantiate this claim at all, but even without the manaweaving, I was taught early on that a 3-pile pile shuffle is tantamount to cheating.

Apparently... and again, this is entirely anecdotal, so if someone wants to show me some maths to disprove I'm all for it... but apparently, a 3-pile pile shuffle followed by a riffle or two has a nasty habit of lumping lands together and dicking with your draws in a significant way.

On the surface, it almost makes sense - your deck is generally roughly 33% land. So three piles of cards, obfuscate the math, carry the 1, sure. I'll buy that.

Given the amount of shuffle that occurs over a regular game of Magic, I wonder if this even matters anymore. But also, any time anyone ever tries a 3-pile with me I just very instinctually become a little peeved and I try to ask them to employ a different method.

Again, I have zero evidence to back that up. It's just one of those things that some fairly good players and smart people told me early on, so I bought it.


It *could* just be that we're all a little bit sick of all the shuffling in a game of Magic, but apart from "protecting your investment" what is the impetus behind all these players that are so unwilling to shuffle, or looking for outs in the form of near-misses? I'm reminded of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin goes through this whole rigamarole to avoid taking a bath, but make it LOOK like he totally did, and Hobbes is like "dude wtf you probably could have just taken a bath". Above a certain REL it's just a requirement, so what gives exactly??

[Koby]

Technically, yes he did cheat. I don't exactly feel sympathy for his opponent though. Kind of like how I don't feel sympathy for a casino when the dealer accidentally pays me 2 and a half for a blackjack after they bust. If your opponent is trying to get an unfair edge on people, they deserve to get one upped.

I want to go to this casino on the off chance that I get this payout. I would even make a career out of it.

And yes, pile shuffling is not an acceptable form of shuffling if nothing else is done to the deck. Call a judge instead.

[lordofthepit]

If you do a bunch of mash shuffles and follow that up with a pile shuffle/count (in my case, 7 piles), is it still necessary to mash shuffle before presenting? I was told by a judge at an SCG open that it was.

[Koby]

If you do a bunch of mash shuffles and follow that up with a pile shuffle/count (in my case, 7 piles), is it still necessary to mash shuffle before presenting? I was told by a judge at an SCG open that it was.

Technically, no. But it's also likely you're just wasting time since pile-shuffling is not randomizing the deck any further; simply re-ordering it. If the deck was randomized via Faro shuffle (mash), then that would be enough on its own. Adding further pile-shuffles doesn't increase the randomness of the deck.

[lordofthepit]

Technically, no. But it's also likely you're just wasting time since pile-shuffling is not randomizing the deck any further; simply re-ordering it. If the deck was randomized via Faro shuffle (mash), then that would be enough on its own. Adding further pile-shuffles doesn't increase the randomness of the deck.

I primarily use pile shuffling to count to 60.

Edit: Also, if you can do it as proficiently as Saito, you can get your opponent to tilt. :cool:

[Koby]

I primarily use pile shuffling to count to 60.

Edit: Also, if you can do it as proficiently as Saito, you can get your opponent to tilt. :cool:

Funny you mention Saito. There's a video on him pile shuffling, flipping a card (thus revealing it), continuing the pile shuffle then presenting the deck without additional randomization. Classic "insufficient randomization" example.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I cannot substantiate this claim at all, but even without the manaweaving, I was taught early on that a 3-pile pile shuffle is tantamount to cheating.

Apparently... and again, this is entirely anecdotal, so if someone wants to show me some maths to disprove I'm all for it... but apparently, a 3-pile pile shuffle followed by a riffle or two has a nasty habit of lumping lands together and dicking with your draws in a significant way.

On the surface, it almost makes sense - your deck is generally roughly 33% land. So three piles of cards, obfuscate the math, carry the 1, sure. I'll buy that.

Given the amount of shuffle that occurs over a regular game of Magic, I wonder if this even matters anymore. But also, any time anyone ever tries a 3-pile with me I just very instinctually become a little peeved and I try to ask them to employ a different method.

Again, I have zero evidence to back that up. It's just one of those things that some fairly good players and smart people told me early on, so I bought it.


It *could* just be that we're all a little bit sick of all the shuffling in a game of Magic, but apart from "protecting your investment" what is the impetus behind all these players that are so unwilling to shuffle, or looking for outs in the form of near-misses? I'm reminded of that Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin goes through this whole rigamarole to avoid taking a bath, but make it LOOK like he totally did, and Hobbes is like "dude wtf you probably could have just taken a bath". Above a certain REL it's just a requirement, so what gives exactly??

If the deck is randomized it doesn't matter what the pile shuffle is, so people that told you this were either wrong or trying to cheat you.


Also seriously people shuffle your opponents' decks.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I have never liked the rule that you have to shuffle your opponent's deck. I am all thumbs and constantly afraid that I am going to flip a card over, thus subjecting myself to a violation purely by lack of coordination. I only cut because of this, never shuffle. I don't even do a complete cut, but rather poker style where you leave the second half to the dealer. As you can imagine, I am hawkish about watching my opponent's hands while he shuffles, but this guy on the video was prepared in a way I may have fallen victim to had I not cut him. The matte cards are a little better, but I am so non-dextrous that I flip those over as well. So I don't riffle at all. I don't know if it is legal to call a judge to shuffle for you, but I don't see that option and I don't see calling one every game anyway. I have never had a problem, but the ground is fertile for plenty of them.

Does anyone know of a simple solution for this issue?

I always watch the ceiling while I shuffle so that if I do flip a card I can't have seen it.

You do have to do this a little bit to be able to do it from feel, but if you already play a lot of Magic and are used to shuffling anyway it's actually not hard.

Also you get really good at identifying sleeve brands by touch.

[Megadeus]

I always watch the ceiling while I shuffle so that if I do flip a card I can't have seen it.

You do have to do this a little bit to be able to do it from feel, but if you already play a lot of Magic and are used to shuffling anyway it's actually not hard.

Also you get really good at identifying sleeve brands by touch.

I usually look the opposite way of the bottom of the deck. Or I'll look at my opponent and shuffle to the side.

[Julian23]

Funny you mention Saito. There's a video on him pile shuffling, flipping a card (thus revealing it), continuing the pile shuffle then presenting the deck without additional randomization. Classic "insufficient randomization" example.

Wowowow, are you trying to say that Saito is a cheater?! JUDGE!

[cdr]

Wowowow, are you trying to say that Saito is a cheater?! JUDGE!

Not that this thread need further derailing, but man did Saito's interview with PVDDR tick me off. Guy has about as much remorse as Mike Long and Alex Bertoncini put together.

[apple713]

Not that this thread need further derailing, but man did Saito's interview with PVDDR tick me off. Guy has about as much remorse as Mike Long and Alex Bertoncini put together.

any chance you have a link to this? or know what to search? I'm surprised Saito was still in the hall of fame after being caught cheating...

[cdr]

any chance you have a link to this? or know what to search? I'm surprised Saito was still in the hall of fame after being caught cheating...

His HOF induction got revoked when he got suspended; he's up for vote again, and some people are voting for him. Then again, people voted for Mike Long.

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/hall-of-fame-2013-candidates-tomoharu-saito/

He tries to explain away the stalling DQ as he has in the past, and of course doesn't mention that you get an 18 month suspension for a pattern of behavior and not for a DQ. I had a half dozen interactions with him as a judge; Bertoncini seems an apt comparison. Would take advantage of anything to win, zero remorse, paints himself as the victim when he finally gets busted.

[kiwi]

Another video, another boy ,anothers fetchs tutors, and a cheat with senseis divining top.

Keep attention with right player

0:15 First fetch tutor

2:15 Second fetch tutor

3:15 A trick with lands and senseis divining top.


Explanation of this kind of fetch tutor: when he shuffles, he looks the bottom card of his deck, when he liked that card he stops and he start to pass cards from bottom to top (this method of shuffling usally is used for some magicians for putting in the top the card from bottom and viceversa)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A_g1kTni4ps

Some time after this tournament this boy was caught in a ptq, and he was suspended for 18 months.

[Opaco]

Alex del Valle talks about the video. (http://www.mtgproject.es/entrevista-de-saval-a-alsan-sobre-el-famoso-video/)

For those who can't read spanish or don't want to read the full interview, to sum up he claims that the combo was already in his hand, the video is from a second game and all the handling while fetching because he was also checking the deck since he had forgotten if he had sideboarded a card, the time he spent looking at a card was because he was deciding which of his different altered U.Seas was going to take and that the difference between the strange first shuffle compared to the neat one done for the third game was because in the former he was nervous being one game behind another combo deck while in the later he was confident.

In my opinion, as in the video the content of his hand is not seen and what the top card was could not be verified, even if the video shows some shady fetching he is going for the presumption of innocence + intentionality can't be established to avoid/mitigate the sanction. In case there is one in the first place: in the Delgado case above he was not sanctioned because of the clear land+SDT cheat shown in the video (the fetch tutors are somehow debatable), but until actually caught in the spot of doing a vampiric fetch while a player/judge (I don't remember) behind him even saw the trick and could predict what the top card of his deck was.

[sauce]

Another video, another boy ,anothers fetchs tutors, and a cheat with senseis divining top.

Keep attention with right player

0:15 First fetch tutor

2:15 Second fetch tutor

3:15 A trick with lands and senseis divining top.


Explanation of this kind of fetch tutor: when he shuffles, he looks the bottom card of his deck, when he liked that card he stops and he start to pass cards from bottom to top (this method of shuffling usally is used for some magicians for putting in the top the card from bottom and viceversa)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A_g1kTni4ps

Some time after this tournament this boy was caught in a ptq, and he was suspended for 18 months.

3:25 is not a trick, that's just straight up not legal via game rules...

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Alex del Valle talks about the video. (http://www.mtgproject.es/entrevista-de-saval-a-alsan-sobre-el-famoso-video/)

For those who can't read spanish or don't want to read the full interview, to sum up he claims that the combo was already in his hand, the video is from a second game and all the handling while fetching because he was also checking the deck since he had forgotten if he had sideboarded a card, the time he spent looking at a card was because he was deciding which of his different altered U.Seas was going to take and that the difference between the strange first shuffle compared to the neat one done for the third game was because in the former he was nervous being one game behind another combo deck while in the later he was confident.

In my opinion, as in the video the content of his hand is not seen and what the top card was could not be verified, even if the video shows some shady fetching he is going for the presumption of innocence + intentionality can't be established to avoid/mitigate the sanction. In case there is one in the first place: in the Delgado case above he was not sanctioned because of the clear land+SDT cheat shown in the video (the fetch tutors are somehow debatable), but until actually caught in the spot of doing a vampiric fetch while a player/judge (I don't remember) behind him even saw the trick and could predict what the top card of his deck was.

There isn't a presumption of innocence in Magic rules enforcement. There's just whatever the DCI decides happened. Anyway you're bending over backwards here, there's no other plausible interpretation of his actions other than he was stacking the top of his deck. If we discard Ockham's razor we can always find some convoluted explanation for cheating that preserves innocence, but it has to actually make sense and this story doesn't.

[Koby]

I am really glad this thread, the videos, and exposing cheaters like this exists. Thanks for providing the content.

[infant_no_1]

I am really glad this thread, the videos, and exposing cheaters like this exists. Thanks for providing the content.

I second Koby on this. Players do not call judges often enough. Judges that are playing are on either end of the spectrum. Either always calling a judge, or never calling a judge. It drives me crazy

Has another judge piped in regarding the shuffling / cutting opinions? I'm an L2 from the Dallas area & for competitive play cutting =! shuffling. Of course in the real world no one shuffles their opponent's decks like they should. Hell I know that even I don't always shuffle my opponent's deck during the game.

Also a pile count is not the same as a shuffle. Ever. If you shuffle (mash or riffle) your deck before game 1, then pile count you need another shuffle before presenting. I know I heard this from an official avenue, but cannot recall if it was an article or podcast so I cannot provide a citation.

[Opaco]

There isn't a presumption of innocence in Magic rules enforcement. There's just whatever the DCI decides happened. Anyway you're bending over backwards here, there's no other plausible interpretation of his actions other than he was stacking the top of his deck. If we discard Ockham's razor we can always find some convoluted explanation for cheating that preserves innocence, but it has to actually make sense and this story doesn't.

To clarify myself, what I wrote earlier was a summary of his declarations and just what I thought he is trying to achieve with them, not knowing what he is going to actually say to the DCI, which he probably should know better as he is a certified judge.

I think that the cheat is crystal clear, also think that his attemp to justify his actions is just ridiculous (he even says something like "there is always a card on top of the deck because one must be left there", what kind of justification is that?) and that he should be heavily punished for this.

[cdr]

There isn't a presumption of innocence in Magic rules enforcement. There's just whatever the DCI decides happened. Anyway you're bending over backwards here, there's no other plausible interpretation of his actions other than he was stacking the top of his deck. If we discard Ockham's razor we can always find some convoluted explanation for cheating that preserves innocence, but it has to actually make sense and this story doesn't.

The DCI doesn't exist anymore, so much as it ever existed - it was always a polite fiction for "WotC". The investigation committee (senior judges+WotC OP) is what you mean.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Duelists' Convocation International is way cooler/geekier than other terms.

[Julian23]

Seriously, WHAT the fuck is going on in Spain? Pretty sure it's an international problem but the blatant cheating I see from some of the prime names I always recognized is really pretty hard to take right now. The Fetchland Tutor is so obvious looking at his shuffling habits. And the undoing tapped lands while Top is resolving, then Pyroblasting? I really hope this video is not going to be ignored. He UNTAPS his Badlands to play the Pyroblast?

I always thought most known people actually played legit. But over the course of the last 12 months, I've seen more Cheating than I have ever before, especially at BoM...so sad. I will still go to Paris, but I really hope we see some >1 year bannings. Also, someone mentioned the "Delgado case"...Alex Delgado?

[nedleeds]

Another video, another boy ,anothers fetchs tutors, and a cheat with senseis divining top.

Keep attention with right player

0:15 First fetch tutor

2:15 Second fetch tutor

3:15 A trick with lands and senseis divining top.

Some time after this tournament this boy was caught in a ptq, and he was suspended for 18 months.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!! I mean what a set of stones on this piece of shit. He actually Twiddle s his fucking badlands. In plain sight on camera with an opponent watching; with a blue as a fucking Smurf Show and Tell on the stack. He's a cheater but his opponent is fucking stoned.

[Finn]

I always watch the ceiling while I shuffle so that if I do flip a card I can't have seen it.

You do have to do this a little bit to be able to do it from feel, but if you already play a lot of Magic and are used to shuffling anyway it's actually not hard.

Also you get really good at identifying sleeve brands by touch.

That is interesting. How would I know if I had duffed a card though? It is an imperfect solution, but probably better than just being insecure. Right now, my hands shake. I will try this. Thanks

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You can feel cards escaping pretty easily when you get used to doing it by touch. I've had brand new sleeves spill before but it's convenient when you're not looking that direction so no one can accuse you of trying to sneak a peek.

[paulmaster]

I always thought most known people actually played legit. But over the course of the last 12 months, I've seen more Cheating than I have ever before, especially at BoM...so sad. I will still go to Paris, but I really hope we see some >1 year bannings. Also, someone mentioned the "Delgado case"...Alex Delgado?

Yes, he was suspended due to this video and another actions like seen before

[dontbiteitholmes]

Seriously, WHAT the fuck is going on in Spain? Pretty sure it's an international problem but the blatant cheating I see from some of the prime names I always recognized from there is really pretty hard to take right now. The Fetchland Tutor is so obvious looking at his shuffling habits. And the undoing tapped lands while Top is resolving, then Pyroblasting? I really hope this video is not going to be ignored. He UNTAPS his Badlands to play the Pyroblast?

I always thought most known people actually played legit. But over the course of the last 12 months, I've seen more Cheating than I have ever before, especially at BoM...so sad. I will still go to Paris, but I really hope we see some >1 year bannings. Also, someone mentioned the "Delgado case"...Alex Delgado?

The worst part is these are all plainly recorded matches. You'd have to imagine the people who are actually good at cheating would refrain from doing it in the 1% of matches where they are under a camera, so it really makes you wonder how much we are missing. For better or worse we are almost at a point where it will be technologically feasible to record every match which will hopefully lead to more cheaters being ejected from the game.

[HammafistRoob]

The sad thing is, these are the dumbest cheats ever. I could teach a monkey how to "vampiric fetch" or "twiddle" his badlands. IMO cheating is part of the game, and it always will be. If you're too kind hearted or just straight up stupid to shuffle your opponents deck, you deserve to lose. Pay attention to your opponent, or suffer the consequences.

[Finn]

If you're too kind hearted or just straight up stupid to shuffle your opponents deck, you deserve to lose. Pay attention to your opponent, or suffer the consequences.I say this attitude sucks. Why not just take the stance that police are unnecessary because thieves, rapists, and murderers are a fact of life? There is a degree of truth to it, but you do not blame the victim. Ability to win within the rules is the game. Ability to counter cheating is not. In other words, person X does not "deserve to lose" solely because s/he is unfamiliar with the ways of slick cheaters.

We do not have to put up with the frankly terrible culture of Magic tournaments. And it is not just this item. It's a lot of different things that amount to a poor atmosphere that does not have to exist. We allow it to by not demanding more.

[Julian23]

Straight up question:

You are watching a friend of yours play a game. It catches your attention that at an important point of the game, he accidentally forgets to cut/shuffle his opponent's deck, which he would be required to as per the rules. He's playing a dubious-looking guy who's shuffling habits however seem innocent.

Would you call a judge on your friend not shuffling his opponent's deck? I'm asking because I don't even know. To be perfectly fair, I would love for my friend to win the game but calling a judge here almost feels like outside assistance..

[apple713]

Straight up question:

You are watching a friend of yours play a game. It catches your attention that at an important point of the game, he accidentally forgets to cut/shuffle his opponent's deck, which he would be required to as per the rules. He's playing a dubious-looking guy who's shuffling habits however seem innocent.

Would you call a judge on your friend not shuffling his opponent's deck? I'm asking because I don't even know. To be perfectly fair, I would love for my friend to win the game but calling a judge here almost feels like outside assistance..

it is my understanding that as someone watching the game if you see something that is missed or a failure to maintain gamestate situation you should report it to the players. I dont think it would break the rules if you suggested he cut his opponents deck. If the time has passed and the opponent has drawn cards from it, it would not get rewound.

[apple713]

I say this attitude sucks. Why not just take the stance that police are unnecessary because thieves, rapists, and murderers are a fact of life? There is a degree of truth to it, but you do not blame the victim. Ability to win within the rules is the game. Ability to counter cheating is not. In other words, person X does not "deserve to lose" solely because s/he is unfamiliar with the ways of slick cheaters.

We do not have to put up with the frankly terrible culture of Magic tournaments. And it is not just this item. It's a lot of different things that amount to a poor atmosphere that does not have to exist. We allow it to by not demanding more.

+1

how do you suggest we "demand more?"

[HammafistRoob]

1)I say this attitude sucks.

2)Why not just take the stance that police are unnecessary because thieves, rapists, and murderers are a fact of life?

3)There is a degree of truth to it, but you do not blame the victim.

4)Ability to win within the rules is the game.

5)Ability to counter cheating is not.

6)In other words, person X does not "deserve to lose" solely because s/he is unfamiliar with the ways of slick cheaters.

7) We do not have to put up with the frankly terrible culture of Magic tournaments.
8)And it is not just this item. It's a lot of different things that amount to a poor atmosphere that does not have to exist. We allow it to by not demanding more.

1) You are free to think that. I never said I enjoy bringing this attitude, just that I believe it's necessary if you're serious about winning. If you're not willing to shuffle your opponents deck, you better be willing to lose to cheaters.

2) This is way out of context, and thus, holds no water. You really just compared cheating in a card game to rape/murder? Moving along...

3)I can't blame the victim who was to stupid to protect him/herself by simply shuffling some cards? They are as much a victim of their own stupidity as they are of their opponents cheats.

4) Sure, those are the rules. But we are clearly talking about those who disregard rules. Your point?

5) Yes it is. The part where you shuffle after them.

6) Even if it's your first event, you should know that people are selfish and like to win. I'm not saying you should expect everyone to cheat, but at least take minimal precautions to avoid the possibility. Just because you're unfamiliar with slick ways to cheat, doesn't mean you can't easily avoid them.(Once again, we're back to shuffling their deck. Seems kinda important huh?)

7) But you do though, if you didn't this thread wouldn't exist.

8) When life gives you Lemons, do you make beef stew? (Nobody's going to get this)

You have any ideas on how we could attempt to "demand more"? And who exactly are we demanding more from? Tournament organizers? Wizards? R&D? I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

[cdr]

Straight up question:

You are watching a friend of yours play a game. It catches your attention that at an important point of the game, he accidentally forgets to cut/shuffle his opponent's deck, which he would be required to as per the rules. He's playing a dubious-looking guy who's shuffling habits however seem innocent.

Would you call a judge on your friend not shuffling his opponent's deck? I'm asking because I don't even know. To be perfectly fair, I would love for my friend to win the game but calling a judge here almost feels like outside assistance..

While shuffling your opponent's deck is a tournament rule, it's not a penalizable offense to not shuffle (no penalty in the IPG). If you called a judge, the judge would remind the player to shuffle and he'd then he'd technically be on unsporting conduct penalties if he ignored the judge, though no judge is likely to press the matter.

I would just remind him between games, or after the match.

[Koby]

it is my understanding that as someone watching the game if you see something that is missed or a failure to maintain gamestate situation you should report it to the players. I dont think it would break the rules if you suggested he cut his opponents deck. If the time has passed and the opponent has drawn cards from it, it would not get rewound.

If you think the error is severe, you should ask the players to stop the game, call a judge and explain what you witnessed to the judge away from the players. Missing a trigger is allowed in the game rules, and drawing attention to it could be viewed as outside assistance. Calling a judge will be a better option.

[Esper3k]

You have any ideas on how we could attempt to "demand more"? And who exactly are we demanding more from? Tournament organizers? Wizards? R&D? I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

I believe he means demand more from ourselves as a community.

Yes, I agree with him that you shouldn't blame the victim even though they didn't take steps to protect themselves. Certainly, it would have been prudent for them to shuffle, but the fault is purely with their opponent for cheating, not with the victim.

[phazonmutant]

If you think the error is severe, you should ask the players to stop the game, call a judge and explain what you witnessed to the judge away from the players. Missing a trigger is allowed in the game rules, and drawing attention to it could be viewed as outside assistance. Calling a judge will be a better option.

Correct for Competitive REL. An addendum for professional REL: If you ever find yourself birding matches in a SCG Invitational or Day 2 of a GP, saying anything to the players at all (including asking them to pause the match) will get yourself a quick DQ for Outside Assistance and an invitation to leave the venue. Professional REL is no joke.


Look, I really have to agree with HammafistRoob here. Shitty people exist, and it's just foolish to not take simple precautions. If you think your opponent is doing something shady, call over a judge, ask to step away from the table, point at your hand and pretend to ask them a question about an interaction but actually ask them to keep an eye on your opponent. He will oblige if feasible. If you bring things to judges' attention, it's more likely that cheaters will get caught.

I think every competitive player should learn what simple cheats look like and always keep an eye on his opponent. It doesn't take much effort.



Has another judge piped in regarding the shuffling / cutting opinions? I'm an L2 from the Dallas area & for competitive play cutting =! shuffling. Of course in the real world no one shuffles their opponent's decks like they should. Hell I know that even I don't always shuffle my opponent's deck during the game.

Also a pile count is not the same as a shuffle. Ever. If you shuffle (mash or riffle) your deck before game 1, then pile count you need another shuffle before presenting. I know I heard this from an official avenue, but cannot recall if it was an article or podcast so I cannot provide a citation.

As cdr mentioned, no judge will penalize for not shuffling or cutting. On the other hand, shuffling is distinct from cutting and your opponent has the right to gently shuffle your deck (as long as sleeves and cards are not in danger of getting marked or damaged), despite the reservations of some people on this thread. While it may be true that people can and do stack opponents' decks while shuffling them, it really comes down to being observant and making sure players aren't taking a fucking minute to shuffle their opponent's deck every time their opponent fetches. The onus is on us judges to give slow play warnings here and of course keep an eye out for shady stuff.

About piling - if the deck is "sufficiently shuffled" before, piling isn't going to make it magically *not* sufficiently shuffled. It's just not sufficient to only pile.

[HammafistRoob]

About piling - if the deck is "sufficiently shuffled" before, piling isn't going to make it magically *not* sufficiently shuffled. It's just not sufficient to only pile.

And piling as your last act is definitely quite sketchy imo. Maybe they have slightly marked cards that are barely visible and can know exactly where their 4 Infernals or "Big Shows" are. (Or at least try to take your shuffling technique into account).

I find piling to be an extreme waste of time and effort. If you want to make sure you have 60 just count the deck before shuffling.

Even really good shufflers take about 30 seconds to pile. If you can pile in 30 seconds, I'm sure you can count to 60 in 10 seconds. It's not much, but saving a minute here and there shouldn't go ignored. Also, it's pretty hard to pile quickly while watching your opponent, which is why I stopped piling before figuring out that it didn't even randomize.

The more randomized the deck is, you actually have a better chance of drawing a keeper. So why would you not want to randomize as much as possible? I sideboard as quickly as possible just to get more shuffles in.

[Dark Lord]

Correct for Competitive REL. An addendum for professional REL: If you ever find yourself birding matches in a SCG Invitational or Day 2 of a GP, saying anything to the players at all (including asking them to pause the match) will get yourself a quick DQ for Outside Assistance and an invitation to leave the venue. Professional REL is no joke.


So what exactly is the protocol for a situation that may arise if you aren't allowed to ask for a match to stop while you fetch a judge?

[lochlan]

An addendum for professional REL: If you ever find yourself birding matches in a SCG Invitational or Day 2 of a GP, saying anything to the players at all (including asking them to pause the match) will get yourself a quick DQ for Outside Assistance and an invitation to leave the venue.

Do you have a citation for this? You're right that spectators aren't allowed to talk to players at Pro REL...


At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge. At Professional REL, spectators must not interfere with the match directly.

...but there's nothing in the IPG about pausing a game being Outside Assistance. What you're describing does not seem to fall in line with the IPG philosophy. Furthermore, I'm very skeptical that you'd get a "DQ" for pausing a match.

I'm only a Level 1 and thus have never judged at Pro REL, but I'm pretty familiar with the MTR/IPG and this sounds pretty strange to me.

[cdr]

Correct for Competitive REL. An addendum for professional REL: If you ever find yourself birding matches in a SCG Invitational or Day 2 of a GP, saying anything to the players at all (including asking them to pause the match) will get yourself a quick DQ for Outside Assistance and an invitation to leave the venue. Professional REL is no joke.

That is completely incorrect.

You can and should ask players to hold the match while you call a judge if you're pretty sure something has gone wrong. You will never get warned for this (unless you're doing it completely obnoxiously or in bad faith) much less DQed, even at Professional.

The definition of Outside Assistance has been considerably narrowed over time. There is literally one sentence about what constitutes Outside Assistance for spectators: "Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match." If you're not giving play advice or revealing hidden info, it's not OA.

[infant_no_1]

I'm not sure about getting DQ'd but I know that you cannot interrupt the match. Including stopping them to call a judge

Magic Tournament Rules states:


1.11 Spectators
Any person physically present at a tournament and not in any other category above is a spectator. Spectators are
responsible for remaining silent and passive during matches and other official tournament sections in which
players are also required to be silent. If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are
encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask
the players to pause the match while they alert a judge. At Professional REL, spectators must not interfere with
the match directly.
Players may request that a spectator not observe their matches. Such requests must be made through a judge.
Tournament officials may also instruct a spectator not observe a match or matches.

[dontbiteitholmes]

I'm not sure about getting DQ'd but I know that you cannot interrupt the match. Including stopping them to call a judge

Magic Tournament Rules states:

Umm, that rule says you can stop a match, basically unless it's the pro tour (or day 2 of GP?).

Most annoying rule ever if you play Enchantress, you wouldn't believe how many times some idiot walked up to game 3 as I had about 20 permanents out and interrupted my match to call a judge or saw me draw cards off a countered enchantment with Argothian out and did the same. "Uh judge, he broke a fetch land then drew a card after his opponent shuffled his deck!" Yeah I had multiple Enchantress triggers stacked and wanted to shuffle away the dead card on top I knew from Mirri's Guile, now kindly fuck off.

Still I am glad the rule exists overall.

[Koby]

Umm, that rule says you can stop a match, basically unless it's the pro tour (or day 2 of GP?).

<annoyance>

Still I am glad the rule exists overall.

I mean, you are playing Enchantress... :laugh:

[monovfox]

I can't believe how many times I've had a goblins player go "judge , can I talk to you away from the table?" Afte to have vialed in a Phyrexian revoker naming gempalm incinerator.


No. You cannot respond by cycling gempalm incinerator. Stop trying, and stop giving yourself warnings and game losses. Thank *sigh*. I've also had people who haven't RTFCd of flickerwisp or mangara call a judge, when thy werent in a games and my opponents have also done so when I say "at the end of the next end step" or when I do the mangara trick


Enchantress player, I feel your pain.

[Finn]

1) You are free to think that. I never said I enjoy bringing this attitude, just that I believe it's necessary if you're serious about winning. If you're not willing to shuffle your opponents deck, you better be willing to lose to cheaters.

2) This is way out of context, and thus, holds no water. You really just compared cheating in a card game to rape/murder? Moving along...

3)I can't blame the victim who was to stupid to protect him/herself by simply shuffling some cards? They are as much a victim of their own stupidity as they are of their opponents cheats.

4) Sure, those are the rules. But we are clearly talking about those who disregard rules. Your point?

5) Yes it is. The part where you shuffle after them.

6) Even if it's your first event, you should know that people are selfish and like to win. I'm not saying you should expect everyone to cheat, but at least take minimal precautions to avoid the possibility. Just because you're unfamiliar with slick ways to cheat, doesn't mean you can't easily avoid them.(Once again, we're back to shuffling their deck. Seems kinda important huh?)

7) But you do though, if you didn't this thread wouldn't exist.

8) When life gives you Lemons, do you make beef stew? (Nobody's going to get this)

You have any ideas on how we could attempt to "demand more"? And who exactly are we demanding more from? Tournament organizers? Wizards? R&D? I'm not really sure what you mean by this.OK. I see that you retorted my post in parts. I am not going to respond in kind, partly out of a desire to keep this civil, and partly because I realize that by going that route the original point of my post would be lost in page after page of argument.

We can demand more by insisting that Wizards clean up tournament environments. By that I mean do not reward players for poor sportsmanship. This is not the first time I have brought this up.

As a simple example, I am not anxious to shuffle my opponent's deck simply because I am afraid that I will accidentally reveal a card. If I do this, I can expect my opponent to report it. That shit don't fly with me. It is a lack of dexterity and not any desire to cheat that would cause me to flip that card. Even if my opponent and any spectators know that I did not do this on purpose, I can expect a game loss. (I think this is a game loss, if not it is a poor example.) Of course there is a problem if I see a card, but the point is that the rules reward my opponent for calling me on a technicality.

We allow players to take advantage of those who do not know the tournament rules as well. I'm not talking about something like the stack here. I mean, the scum who sees that a player dropped a card during shuffling, and rather than point it out he waits until the other guy presents, and then calls a judge to get him on not having 60 cards.
We revere players for using ambiguity (there is an example I am thinking of, but I can't remember the pro's name - it was the "all my legal targets" incident) to punish players by purposely misrepresenting the game state.
We do not punish cheaters nearly hard enough, although there are some exceptions. But mostly, cheaters are given extra chances. If the consequences were more distasteful, players would be less inclined to go for it.

Wizards makes the rules, but we do not demand more of them. We have to make them see that this is not good enough. There is a difference between cut throat (which is proper at high end play) and not conducting yourself in a way that respects your opponents or the game. When the environment is one that discourages bad behavior, attitudes will change. There is no downside to this for us, the players. But the first step is to acknowledge that it is a problem in the first place. We are so used to expecting to meet nasty people at tournaments that we don't stop to think that it does not have to be that way.

I work for an exclusive school/academy. One of my responsibilities in the summer is to create and maintain an environment in which kids and teens can be competitive while demanding they respect one another, the curriculum, the school, etc. It is a question of culture, and it has to start from the top. And it works very well.

I have more to say. This is not complete. But it is Friday, and time to go. :)

[HammafistRoob]

Finn- I wasn't trying to argue, I was just backing my claims and pointing out why I disagree. I only broke your post down that way because I feel like it's both easier on me and easier to follow. All of my relevant posts are formatted that way(if I have any).

I do completely agree with your last post. I also wish the game had more precautions in place to avoid cheats at at least Competitive REL and up. But there really aren't many ways, and if you come up with ways, there will still always be players who think they can try and "out smart" their opponent. There is no way of stopping cheats from ever happening, and I can't think of any ways to minimize peoples' attempts other than familiarizing yourself with some cheats, watching your opponent like a hawk, and shuffling their deck differently each time.

[cdr]

The sentence in the MTR about not interrupting a match at Professional does not apply to asking a match to hold while you call a judge. At multiple GPs I've judged at judges were specifically instructed not to enforce that for calling a judge. It's never been enforced in general, I dunno why it's still in there.

[Julian23]

Even if my opponent and any spectators know that I did not do this on purpose, I can expect a game loss. (I think this is a game loss, if not it is a poor example.)

It seems you are way too afraid of these things, really. Although it hurts the integrity of the match, it's no big deal penalty-wise. You will get a warning and the match will proceed. Just shuffle that damn deck, it's no big deal if you drop a card unless you do it on purpose.


We allow players to take advantage of those who do not know the tournament rules as well. I'm not talking about something like the stack here. I mean, the scum who sees that a player dropped a card during shuffling, and rather than point it out he waits until the other guy presents, and then calls a judge to get him on not having 60 cards.

Seeing your opponent drop a card and not telling him could very likely be a punishable offense. It's not as black/white as you think.



We revere players for using ambiguity (there is an example I am thinking of, but I can't remember the pro's name - it was the "all my legal targets" incident) to punish players by purposely misrepresenting the game state.

It was Patrick Chapin casting Profane Command and had his opponent assume that Chameleon Colossus (protection black) would also get Fear. I can understand that you don't like this play from a Casual-player's point of view — but there is absolutely zero ambiguity in this play. Whom I am really angry with is Chapin's opponent who wasn't tipped off by the very unusual phrasing Chapin used and also didn't fucking read his opponent's cards. If someone is to mentally lazy to play the game at the highest levels, I feel no mercy. Had he taken the time and concentration to analyze the situation, Chapin would have been 100% dead. Instead his opponent just demonstrated very bad play.

[Quinta]

The player of the video has been suspended for 18 months.

[lordofthepit]

The player of the video has been suspended for 18 months.

Great news, wish it were longer.

[HammafistRoob]

I bet he doesn't even care. I wonder how much winnings he racked up with his blatant stupidity.