Interesting (new?) Rule

[Gary Lynch]

Was reading Olivier Ruels article and noticed this, I have never heard of this before, has anyone else?

 

Who would be willing to do this at a Nats Q or PTQ? Other than Dan Royde :)

 

"Selim Creiche, a friend of mine who has played in a few PTs (and was qualified for San Diego), told me about a weird story that had happened to him. In a game at his PTQ, his opponent played Path to Exile on one of Selim’s guys; after searching for a land, Selim gave two riffle-shuffles to his deck and handed it back to his opponent. Before the opponent had the opportunity to shuffle back, a judge extended the hand to stop the game and get Selim a Game Loss for insufficient shuffling. When he asked a judge what it would take to make it correct shuffling, the judge answered "7 shuffles, just like they do in Vegas."

Let me make this clear: I think this rule is the worst to be introduced in over a decade. Well, after the damage on the stack thing, of course.

Basically, the rule says that in every single game of Extended (as there are fetches in every deck, and often Path to Exile), any player can get a free win if he’s an ass. Now, if the rule stays in place (and I’ve talked to many judges who globally like it, so it should), it could be mean two things:

A - When players eventually find out about the rule, every pregame shuffle, fetch land, Path to Exile etc. will mean a minute of shuffling. This means shuffles will be correct, but every single match of extended will be about 5 to 10 minutes longer. It’s up to you to decide if you want to play a slow deck under those conditions.

B - Things will remain in their current state, and some people win undoubtedly play with the morals behind the rule, which clearly abides by the law but goes against the spirit of the game. If a kid, a brand new player, only cuts his opponent’s deck, and the opponent calls over the judge for insufficient shuffling, then the kid will most probably receive a Game Loss sanction. And from there, who knows if we’ll ever see that kid playing Magic again? "

[Gary Lynch]

Ok so its not new, nowhere apparently does it state how many times is "sufficent". This is all that in the penalty guidelines "4.4. Tournament Error — Insufficient Randomization
Definition
A player unintentionally fails to sufficiently randomize his or her deck before presenting it to his or her opponent. A deck is not randomized if the judge believes a player could know the position or distribution of one or more cards in his or her deck. If the insufficient randomization was intentional, the infraction is Cheating — Manipulation of Game Materials.
Examples
A. A player forgets to shuffle his library after searching for a card.
B. A player searches for a card, then gives the deck a single riffle-shuffle before presenting the deck to her opponent. "

So remember if they search their deck and only riffle once collect your free game win :)

[Thomas David Baker]

Not sure I'm ruthless enough for this. Maybe if they're really good and I don't think I can beat them any other way and there's something major on the line.

[Ben Titmarsh]

I get the feeling that the game loss will be the exception rather than the rule, and the judge in this case was just being a bit heavy handed.

[Kieran Symington]

Will definately have to do this the next time I play Steve - another DQ beckons :)

[stevie_b]

Kieran would u like streetfighter steve to riffle shuffle your face?

Kieran Symington said:

Will definately have to do this the next time I play Steve - another DQ beckons :)

[Dan Barrett]

It's like you really don't want to play at the Games Club ever again!

[Daniel Royde]

There isn't a specific minimum number of shuffles because it would depend on how you're shuffling.
The "have you shuffled enough" test is something like- from what you saw of your deck and the shuffling you've done, do you have any information about the position of any cards in your deck?

For example if you saw a one of in your deck, shuffled insufficiently, and knew that it was in the bottom half, then you're doing it wrong.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the Southern UK judge community is small enough that we'll know what anyone who could head judge a ptq thinks.

[Gary Lynch]

What does anyone who could head judge a ptq think? Is it " I wish I was better at Magic"?

Daniel Royde said:

There isn't a specific minimum number of shuffles because it would depend on how you're shuffling.
The "have you shuffled enough" test is something like- from what you saw of your deck and the shuffling you've done, do you have any information about the position of any cards in your deck?

For example if you saw a one of in your deck, shuffled insufficiently, and knew that it was in the bottom half, then you're doing it wrong.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the Southern UK judge community is small enough that we'll know what anyone who could head judge a ptq thinks.

[Philip Rogers]

Gary Lynch said:

" I wish I was better at Magic"?


You know me so well...