Before we get started, though, let's describe the superficially simple deck check. Through each round of a tournament, judges will take a number of randomly-selected decks from players, after the players have shuffled and presented their decks, and verify that there are no problems with the deck.

Generally speaking, there aren't any problems, and the decks are returned and matches are resumed. When there are problems, they're usually honest mistakes, which the judges correct and issue penalties for before returning the deck. Once in a great while, if judges find that a player was intentionally trying to cheat to gain some kind of advantage, a disqualification may be issued.

What's more, there are costs to deck checks. Rounds end later, and tournaments finish more slowly. Judges are less available to take floor calls. People who accidentally make honest mistakes end up being penalized more often than those who are actually trying to cheat.

With all of this in mind, the question is, "why do we do it?" Is it really worth all of the drawbacks when we don't necessarily catch cheaters the way we might like?

This seems, at first glance, like quite a reasonable question. One obvious answer is that the difficulty of enforcement is not a reason not to be diligent. If we catch any instances of cheating, it's worth the effort, even if we don't catch them all. But even this doesn't fully tell the story of why it makes sense to do deck checks, and emphasizing the question suggests a myopic view of why we penalize. While catching those who cheat is one goal of running deck checks, it is by no means the only reason that they are performed.

These questions imply a couple of fallacies in the asking. First is the notion that it's not a good thing to penalize those who make honest mistakes. In reality, though, these situations do affect tournament integrity and need to be watched for just as the intentional cases do. Even if a player is gaining an advantage inadvertently and without intent, they still end up with an advantage. It is true that intentional cheating is a worse case, but this isn't really an argument to not penalize the accidents. This difference is already reflected in the different magnitude of the penalties that are assessed in these cases.

Second, even if we don't catch everyone who attempts to cheat, that doesn't mean that deck checks aren't having an impact on the incidence of cheating. Reducing the incidence of cheating due to catching those who attempt to cheat only reflects the reactive mode of enforcement, but this isn't the only way in which penalties are effective. Less thought about, often, is the proactive mode of enforcement—the way in which people are dissuaded from cheating in the first place because of the risk that they may be caught. Simply put—even if we don't catch everyone who cheats, the fact that we try will prevent most players who might consider it from even trying

In a nutshell, this is why deck checks are a vital part of maintaining tournament integrity, however they are conducted. It certainly is the case, however, that the skill with which they are performed can make a drastic difference in how much good they can do, and how well the downsides are mitigated.

Timeliness: When a deck check is performed on a match, the match is always granted extra time to compensate for the time spent on the check. To ensure that the players have an equal amount of time as everyone else, matches are extended by the time spent plus three minutes—three minutes being the time for the usual pregame procedure. This means that the amount of time that a deck check takes can potentially go straight into the amount of time that a round takes. If that match ends up running to time, then every minute spent on the deck check costs the tournament one minute. Thus, speed and efficiency of deck checks is paramount.

Accuracy: Ideally, deck checks will catch every legitimate deck issue and will not falsely tag any deck that actually has no issues. Strive to properly analyze every deck for what it is and whether there are any rules violations, avoiding both false positives and false negatives. One thing worth noting on this point—this goal brings to mind the United States criminal justice system. Here, at least, avoiding false conclusions is certainly a goal, but there is also the recognition that it is hard to always get this right. When errors might occur, then, there is a natural inclination to err on the side of innocence [I don't know that I'd agree that it's a 'natural inclination', but it's certainly explicit in our legal code -Seamus]. Without going into too much detail, the presumption of innocence isn't necessarily the goal in the judging program. As Sheldon Menery (one of the most senior judges in the DCI) once taught me, the DCI is not a court of law. This is well worth noting, and here specifically, means that judges should not be afraid to act even if they aren't 100% positive. The details of this principle, though, are a story for another column [One which I hope to cover in the near future -S].

Thoroughness: There are many, many things that can be checked during a deck check and, subject to the constraints of timeliness, judges performing deck checks should do their best to keep an eye on as many of them as they can. The judges who are most effective at performing deck checks generally are the ones who have found ways to look for multiple issues at the same time, in order to broaden their coverage without substantially increasing the amount of time that it takes. Fortunately, some of the techniques for doing so are easily taught and picked up.

The decks to be taken should be randomly determined. In the usual case, where a tournament is being run through DCI Reporter, there is functionality within the program to choose random tables for this purpose. It's important to make sure to use some kind of mechanism to make a random determination separate from "take any table that is convenient"—this ensures that players cannot manipulate whether or not they receive a deck check based on how they behave.

There's a natural tendency to focus the random selection only on the top tables, on the players who look to be in contention to win the tournament. This does make some sense, as there is more at stake there and keeping the playing field level is important at that level. This doesn't, however, mean that there shouldn't be any deck checks for lower tables. Players that aren't doing as well in a tournament deserve the same level playing field as every other player, and the match results still matter. Additionally, in the vein of the proactive mechanism of enforcement, if players become conditioned to the fact that lower tables not ever being checked, this can encourage laziness, carelessness, or worse.

When it comes down to actually taking the decks, there is an interesting balance to make between paying enough attention to glean what data you can from the players involved and not making it obvious which tables are going to be checked (keeping the tables to be checked ambiguous for as long as possible helps to keep everyone on their toes, adding to the benefits of proactive enforcement). The most important thing to keep an eye on is the manner in which players shuffle, since this is an important clue that will be needed later to see whether there are any issues with insufficient randomization. Changing things up, sometimes watching the table that is to be checked and sometimes watching other tables and only periodically glancing at the table to be checked, can help with this.

The right time to actually grab the decks is after both players have completed shuffling and have presented their opponents with their decks, but before the opponent gets a chance to make any alterations to the deck. This is, again, crucial to checking for potential cases of insufficient randomization.

Once a table has been tapped and the decks are ready for collection, both players' decks and sideboards should be obtained. Checking both players at the same time is more fair to both players, and is an efficient way to be able to check multiple decks while minimizing the number of delayed matches. A verification of the sideboard can turn up issues that a check of just the main deck cannot.

As one judge is handling the swoop, another judge should be pulling the decklists of the tables that were selected, so that those decklists are available for the actual check without unnecessary delay. If the staff is large enough that a pair of judges can be assigned to each table, one for each deck (this is the ideal case), then this means half of each pair can swoop and the other can pull decklists.

Finally, it's generally the case that most judges do a round of deck checks at the beginning of each round and then just monitor the floor for the rest of the round. This is, under the principle of proactive enforcement, a mistake. It's important to occasionally run mid-round deck checks, after a game (or two) has already completed. Though judges doing this do need to account for the fact that sideboarding was legal, most issues can still be checked. Additionally, if players know that they can be checked at any time, this helps them to stay focused and make less deck related mistakes.

The following is by no means the only way that a deck check can effectively be performed, but it is one framework that does work well:

• First, do a check for whether the deck looks to be insufficiently randomized. This generally is easiest to do with the information gathered during the swoop as to shuffling style, and the primary thing to look for is mana weaving (where the deck is generally arranged land, spell, spell, land, spell, spell, etc...). This is the most common case of insufficient randomization, and in many cases, players may not even know that this is illegal, even though it is. While it is remotely possible that a mana-weaved pattern may develop through adequate shuffling, it is rare enough that red flags should be raised if it occurs, and some thought should be put into the way that the shuffling was performed. [It's my feeling that beyond severe mana weaving, it's very difficult to establish randomization issues without observing a player's shuffling habits. This is a point of some debate in the judge community, but it's unquestionably true that watching the shuffle is very important. -S]
• With that out of the way, it is safe to destroy the ordering of the deck. For limited tournaments, the deck should be sorted by set and then by color, for easy matching against the decklist. For constructed tournaments, sort by color and then card name (sorting by color first will speed the process). The contents of the deck should be compared against the deck as registered to see if there are any anomalies.
• Once this check is done, the cards should be turned over, quickly shuffled, and then the backs should be thumbed through [I recommend examining sleeves while the deck is still sorted, as it can make patterns of markings more evident. A lot of deck check technique is a matter of personal preference, though -S]. Two things can be done simultaneously here. First, a count of the total can be done, which validates the overall count and serves as a double check of the count listed on the decklist. Secondly, the cards or sleeves themselves should be examined to look for any markings, and if so, whether there is any discernable pattern to the markings (since the penalty varies widely depending on whether there is a pattern or not). Common markings include creases in sleeves, dirt marks, and nail indentations in sleeves, and if these pop up, then separating cards with these problems and then looking at the cards to see if they fall into a grouping can determine whether there is a pattern. It's worth noting that players will often argue that markings are natural wear and tear and should be ignored. While it is true that wear and tear during a day can result in markings naturally, this doen't change the fact that if the cards do end up marked, that can convey an unfair advantage to a player. It is each player's responsibility to keep their deck in an unmarked form. As a player, if you happen to know that your play style has a tendency to cause a lot of wear and tear, then it is your responsibility to change this or to use and replace sleeves regularly to ensure that there aren't markings later in the day.
• The sideboard should be checked similarly to the main deck—verify that the cards match the list, verify the cards for markings, and check the overall count. [Watch particularly for sideboard sleeves that are distinctly less worn than their maindeck counterparts. These cards can often be visually distinguished post-sideboarding by their freshness -S]
• Finally, record the fact that a deck check was performed, which round it is, the result, and the checking judge on the decklist for later tracking purposes.

For judges, remember that the results of the deck check itself are only one part of a larger puzzle, and that there can be context from the players involved that you also need to take into account when determining what has happened. As always, a strong investigative skill is vital to being as effective of a judge as one can be and doing as good of a job as one can.

Next week: Johanna Virtanen takes us behind the scenes of how a judge prepares for a big tournament, as she gets ready for this year's World Championships.

Next month: You may know the precise rules of Magic, but it's very unlikely that you actually play by them, and if you've ever tried, you know why. The nitty-gritty details and intricacies behind the game can be—if followed to the letter—stifling. On the other hand, they also can prevent some of the fundamental miscommunications that result in some of the toughest situations in judging. We'll take a long look at shortcuts, and how we can find the right middle ground.

---
Nicholas J. Fang
DCI Certified Level 3 Judge—Redmond, WA
mtgjudge@gmail.com
Agbaar and Ag|Work on EFnet's #mtgjudge