[Article] Interview w/Nick Calcaterra-Vintage World Championships *4th*

[beemer]

Top 4@ Vintage World Champs, let me know what you think of the article.

http://www.londes.com/?id=1441

[Purple Hat]

Who exactly is this guy to call rich shay a cheater?

also if he's so convinced rich was setting his deck why didn't he call a judge to shuffle or cut after rich shuffled?

[beemer]

Who exactly is this guy to call rich shay a cheater?

also if he's so convinced rich was setting his deck why didn't he call a judge to shuffle or cut after rich shuffled?

he didn't call shay a cheater. he called him a master shuffler.

there were multiple judges watching. it was the semifinals of the vintage world championships. just saying. thanks for reading.

[Purple Hat]

Who exactly is this guy to call rich shay a cheater?

also if he's so convinced rich was setting his deck why didn't he call a judge to shuffle or cut after rich shuffled?

he didn't call shay a cheater. he called him a master shuffler.

there were multiple judges watching. it was the semifinals of the vintage world championships. just saying. thanks for reading.

Nick: As you know, I have to have Bazaar. I draw seven, use Powder. Miss, draw six. Miss it again, Serum, mull to five, four, three, two, just miss it. I don’t exactly think I did anything wrong, but I probably could have shuffled better. Shay is a master shuffler though, I’m not gonna lie ‘cause every time he shuffles he takes one card and puts it on the bottom. One time I mull and am like “I’m going to look at the bottom card,” and of course it’s Bazaar, I mean…

Beemer: Are you kidding me?!

Nick: Now, I don’t think he cheated or anything…it’s just a little coincidence.

Beemer: That’s insane. Did that only happen once?

Nick: I only checked once. It was enough to prove it to me. As far as game two went, I mean, he had turn zero Leyline. I had beat it before, you know, but he had double counter backup. I Unmasked him once, but it just wasn’t enough.

I'm not saying he cheated, I'm just saying I'm convinced he set my deck.  are you serious?

[beemer]

Nick never said the words 'convinced he set my deck'...the coincidence was insane, i watched it myself when he looked at the bottom card.

No one from StL would ever call Rich Shay a cheater/deck-stacker/etc., I let this part of the interview see print to show the luck envolved in magic, simply enough. I'm sorry you see it as name-calling. Nothing of the sort was said.

"The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest,"-Paul Simon

[Purple Hat]

"everytime he shuffles he takes one card and puts it on the bottom of the deck....I only checked once.  it was enough to proove it to me"

explain to me how that's not saying you think your opponent is setting your deck....the fact that he never said "I'm convinced he set my deck" in those exact words is meaningless.  he said he saw rich put a card on the bottom of his deck and he said he has enough proof to believe that it was bazaar and he used it as an explaination for why he didn't draw bazaar.  I'm not going out on a limb here to say that nick is saying rich set his deck.

 "I'm not saying she's a gold digger..." -Kanye West

[beemer]

As a judge, I can say 'cheating' is grounds for suspension in the DCI. 'Master shuffling' is not. Shay had been putting one card from the top of Nick's deck to the bottom as a final part of his shuffle every time before presenting it to Nick. I watched the mull myself, from the sidelines. Nick grabbed his deck before mulliganing to four, told Shay he was looking at the bottom card, and that one time he looked it was Bazaar. 'Setting a deck' and 'having a lucky shuffle' are two completely different things, you must understand me. I assure you Nick is in no way attempting to call Shay a cheater. If you'd like to hear the audio recording I transcribed, I'm sorry to say you'll have to drive to StL, as it's on a micro-cassette.

If he had lost to Shay in the swiss, you might not have seen this interview, I guess. That never happened though, and Shay lost to Nick in two games. There were actually multiple judges watching those semis...if Shay was a cheater, as you say Nick said(which he didn't), he would have obviously beaten Steve Menendian. So that disproves the theory, no?

[Purple Hat]

I don't understand why you think I'm suggesting rich was a cheater.....you post an interview in which your friend says that rich set his deck, I read it and ask what business your friend has to claim rich set his deck, and from this you somehow get that I think rich is a cheater?  Rich is probably the best magic player I know personally and there's no way in hell i think he'd cheat under any circumstances, which is what led me to be offended by Nick's assertion that Rich's shuffling was putting bazaar on the bottom of his deck resulting in a match loss rather than bad luck or any other reason.  I don't think any reasonable, unbiased, person who spoke english could read that portion of the interview and not think Nick is saying that he blames Rich intentionally putting bazaar on the bottom of his deck for his loss.  I know he's your friend so I get you backing him up, but seriously, people shouldn't just throw serious allegations like that around.

also oliver ruel would like a word with you regarding whether or not "master shuffling" is grounds for suspension.

[beemer]

I see why you're disconcerted, however, he's not a member of my team or my playtest group. To say he's a friend is slightly bending the truth. While he may be an acquaintance, my job as a journalist is to give you correct information/quotation, regardless of how well I know anyone that I may be spotlighting.

As a reasonable, unbiased person who speaks English fairly well, I think Nick and Shay can both agree that Shay did intentionally put a card on the bottom of his library, but he did such without knowing that Nick's top card was Bazaar. Because no one knew. Until Nick looked when he went back to Paris. Poor Nick, right?

I interviewed him and transcribed it. I see your point and your worries. There are no allegations, and no appeals within the results of the tournament. I agree with you completely that Shay is a phenomenal player. This debate is just over the word 'cheating', from my standpoint really. Once again, as a judge, I can't throw that term around lightly. 'Master shuffler' though, as Nick actually said, will get people fired up, and ensue some very good conversation.

[Purple Hat]

I didn't mean to suggest that there was some kind of appeal going on, I meant to suggest that nick says he's convinced rich set his deck.  this would be an allegation that rich is cheating assuming that we all agree that the rules do not allow you to set your opponent's deck.  Regardless of whether he uses the word "cheat" claiming your opponent is violating the rules in order to win the match is pretty clearly calling him a cheater, and that's what nick did.

[ErkBek]

I think your reading into it a little too much Hale. I always found the "put 1 card on the bottom of your deck" a little bit of a joke/mind game that some players do. Your hand would always look better if it had that top card (because you would have had 8 cards). If you mulligan and look at the bottom card then you're just playing into it. Now, since Nick was playing Ichorid everything was a little more significant since the deck is based on mulling into bazaar. I read it as some friendly joking around, I don't think it had malicious intent.

As for the article, you really got off topic for a while, but I wouldn't mind seeing more.

[beemer]

If that's how you want to take it, go ahead, I can't stop you from your opinion, but I can't agree that any rules were violated in that match, from either side, or that either side would accuse the other of unconventional means to win. If Nick was cheated by anything, it was the Magic Gods. Once again, thanks for reading.

EDIT: Kobefan, you can find the rest of my articles here: http://www.londes.com/?v=author&name=Brian%20Beemer

"Off Topic" is an understatement.

[sigar]

I don't know if Nick Calcaterra posts around here, but I would like to hear (from anybody) why Nether Shadow is slower than Dryad Arbor.

If you don't have Dryad in your opening hand or draw it the first time you tap Bazaar, then it's dead weight game 1. Secondly, it does NOT allow you to play Emerald Charm right away, which seems a bit slow too me.

But then again, I am no pro. I would just like some in depth info.

[meadbert]

The issue of presenting an unrandomized deck when playing Manaless Ichorid is a serious one.  If the Ichorid player can "mana-weave" his Bazaars and Powerders he can basically ensure that he mulligans into a hand of 7 with a Bazaar no matter how his deck is cut.  This is one reason why I would encourage anyone playing against an Ichorid player to shuffle their deck.  It is not good enough to just cut the deck.

The second issue is putting a Bazaar on the bottom.  This can be easy to pull of if you shuffle your opponent's deck above your own card sleeve.  You can look at the reflection and wait till there is a Bazaar on the bottom to stop.  This makes it far more likely for your opponent to mulligan into oblivion.

The only advice I can give to avoid this is after Ichorid's opponent shuffles the deck ask him to do one last cut.

There is the final issue of shuffling the Ichorid player's deck to clump Bazaars together.  I imagine this is more difficult to pull off, but if someone could pull it off cutting would not fix the problem.  To avoid this be sure that your opponent's eyes are not too fixed on your deck as he shuffles.

At tournaments where there are valuable prizes at stake it is important to keep an eye out for cheating if possible.

The fact that the bottom card was a Bazaar means nothing in this case.  It is MORE likely to be a Bazaar than any other card in the deck simply because you just mulliganed because you had drawn no Bazaar.

If you notice that a Bazaar shows up on the bottom twice in a row then that is suspicious and three times in a row means there is a really good chance that you have a cheater on your hands.

[beemer]

To avoid this be sure that your opponent's eyes are not too fixed on your deck as he shuffles.

At tournaments where there are valuable prizes at stake it is important to keep an eye out for cheating if possible.

I can assure you that Shay was looking away from Nick's deck while he was shuffling/cutting it. Thanks for reading! This stirs up quite a few topics apparently, regarding card choices (Nether Shadow/Ichorid) and sportsmanship at it's finest. I'm not sure if Nick posts here, his username in most places though is DarkfnTemplar. Because Starcraft rules.

Which, by the way, Starcraft 2 was previewed at Gen Con. I'm upset to say they did not have the Zerg available to play.

[Methuselahn]

Beemer: So what went wrong in the Semis?

Nick: As you know, I have to have Bazaar. I draw seven, use Powder. Miss, draw six. Miss it again, Serum, mull to five, four, three, two, just miss it. I don’t exactly think I did anything wrong, but I probably could have shuffled better. Shay is a master shuffler though, I’m not gonna lie ‘cause every time he shuffles he takes one card and puts it on the bottom. One time I mull and am like “I’m going to look at the bottom card,” and of course it’s Bazaar, I mean…

Personally, I was baffled as to why Nick didn't mull to one if he has to have Bazaar of Baghdad.  Instead, he mulled to 2, dropped Leyline, Rich started, and Nick didn't play Bazaar on his turn.  Leyline of the Void is far from being good versus GAT.  I wonder what the other card was and what Nick was thinking.  Another mulligan could have produced Bazaar during game 1.

[beemer]

I agree, however, I was not playing the game. I believe the other card was Stinkweed Imp. Not 100% on this. Thanks for reading!

[Yames]

In Nicks interview/report he mentions a team supreme player scooping to him in game two for no reason. That player was me. I mulled down to 3 cards looking for any combination of these cards. A leyline, a land, or one of the cards hulk/flash. I kept on island, ancestral, brainstorm. turn one I ancestral into 3 reverent silence. turn 2 I brainstorm into 2 leylines and a tropical island. So it would have taken me till turn 6 to see a hulk and a flash if my draws were perfect. I'm pretty sure he can win before then. Why prolong the agony?

[Shock Wave]

In Nicks interview/report he mentions a team supreme player scooping to him in game two for no reason. That player was me. I mulled down to 3 cards looking for any combination of these cards. A leyline, a land, or one of the cards hulk/flash. I kept on island, ancestral, brainstorm. turn one I ancestral into 3 reverent silence. turn 2 I brainstorm into 2 leylines and a tropical island. So it would have taken me till turn 6 to see a hulk and a flash if my draws were perfect. I'm pretty sure he can win before then. Why prolong the agony?

That's definitely not a good play. You had a very slim chance of winning, but you abandoned it for, like Nick said, no good reason. Against Nick in the Top 8, I had about a 1-5% chance of winning that match, but I still played it out, and I almost clawed myself into game 1 because of his numerous poor play decisions. The match is only over once you're dead or once it is impossible for you to win. In your situation, the match was neither.

[Aardshark]

The match is only over once you're dead or once it is impossible for you to win.

Generally true, although there may be cases where it's correct to concede a theoretically winnable game on time considerations, particularly against a slow deck that's established control. 

Back in my land tax/scroll rack prison days, I won many matches 1-0 unfinished because my locked opponents didn't/wouldn't concede (scroll rack was literally my only win condition maindeck).  In fact, because I was a dog after sideboarding in many of these matches, I would sometimes deliberately avoid putting the "last nail" in their coffin (e.g. by not playing propaganda, wrath of god, or armagedon when I was at a high life total or had a fist full of counters) to forestall their concesson. (I assuredly *did not* slow down my play, though I'm not the speediest player in general).  My better opponents would often scoop and move on as soon as I gained substantial control, rather than hang on for the nth %.

Doesn't seem like this was going on in Yames's game, though.

[Shock Wave]

The match is only over once you're dead or once it is impossible for you to win.

Generally true, although there may be cases where it's correct to concede a theoretically winnable game on time considerations, particularly against a slow deck that's established control. 

Back in my land tax/scroll rack prison days, I won many matches 1-0 unfinished because my locked opponents didn't/wouldn't concede (scroll rack was literally my only win condition maindeck).  In fact, because I was a dog after sideboarding in many of these matches, I would sometimes deliberately avoid putting the "last nail" in their coffin (e.g. by not playing propaganda, wrath of god, or armagedon when I was at a high life total or had a fist full of counters) to forestall their concesson. (I assuredly *did not* slow down my play, though I'm not the speediest player in general).  My better opponents would often scoop and move on as soon as I gained substantial control, rather than hang on for the nth %.

Doesn't seem like this was going on in Yames's game, though.

That's all true, but none of it pertains to the match between Yames and his opponent.

[Yare]

I always found the "put 1 card on the bottom of your deck" a little bit of a joke/mind game that some players do.

This strategy was explained to me to be the "Cut of Doom" at one point.  I would also like to point out that a player has the opportunity to cut his own deck once after his opponent has shuffled it (which I always do).

[LotusHead]

The issue of presenting an unrandomized deck when playing Manaless Ichorid is a serious one.  If the Ichorid player can "mana-weave" his Bazaars and Powerders he can basically ensure that he mulligans into a hand of 7 with a Bazaar no matter how his deck is cut.  This is one reason why I would encourage anyone playing against an Ichorid player to shuffle their deck.  It is not good enough to just cut the deck.

This is the first arguement that has convinced me to shuffle my opponent's deck, even if just a little shuffling.

Many/most of my opponents pile shuffle (6 or so piles) before side shuffling, and I usually assume that this is enough.

I'll likely side shuffle once or twice from now on.

Out here, we call cuts of doom "The Devil's Cut" EDIT: This being cutting a deck and hoping that it gives the opponent crap to work with.

[sigar]

I would also like to point out that a player has the opportunity to cut his own deck once after his opponent has shuffled it (which I always do).

I wasn't aware of that. Are you sure it's 100% legal?

[Shock Wave]

I would also like to point out that a player has the opportunity to cut his own deck once after his opponent has shuffled it (which I always do).

I wasn't aware of that. Are you sure it's 100% legal?

Yes.

[The Demon]

I would also like to point out that a player has the opportunity to cut his own deck once after his opponent has shuffled it (which I always do).

I wasn't aware of that. Are you sure it's 100% legal?

Yes.

After your opponent has shuffled or cut your deck, can you riffle shuffle your own deck, or are you just limited to cutting it?

[Purple Hat]

you can only cut, and I believe you can only cut once.

[Chiz]

From the DCI™ UNIVERSAL TOURNAMENT RULES

21.   Shuffling
Shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players’ decks must be sufficiently randomized. Each time players shuffle their deck, they must present their deck to their opponent for additional shuffling and/or cutting. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than pass that duty to their opponent, this request will be honored at a judge’s discretion. By presenting their decks to their opponents, players are stating that their decks are correct, legal, and sufficiently randomized.
 
After decks are presented and accepted, any player who does not believe his or her opponent has made a reasonable effort to sufficiently randomize his or her deck must notify a judge. The head judge has final authority to determine whether a deck has been sufficiently randomized. The head judge also has the authority to determine if a player has used reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck. If the head judge believes that either the deck has not been sufficiently randomized or that a player has not made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

At REL 3 and higher events players must always shuffle their opponents’ decks at the beginning of games. The head judge can mandate the shuffling of opponents’ decks at lower RELs (1 and 2) as long as he or she announces this at the beginning of the tournament. If a shuffling effect takes place during gameplay, players may shuffle and must cut their opponents’ decks after the shuffling effect is completed.

Once players shuffle and/or cut their opponents’ decks, the cards are returned to their original owners. If the opponent has shuffled the player’s deck, that player may make one final cut.

So, you obviously can cut after the opponent has shuffled your deck, and only once.

[Yare]

Note that if you shuffle your deck and then present it to your opponent and he only cuts it, you don't get to cut it, because a cut is not a shuffle.

[Purple Hat]

I was under the impression that multiple cuts did count as a shuffle though.  so if he cuts it once that's it, but if he cuts it twice or into 3 pieces you can make a single cut when he gives it back.