Tournament rules regarding different backs on cards.

henrik wrote:

Sure. I asked if it would be allowed and you called me a cheater (you did not say anything about circumstances). You called me a cheater and asked if that was my goal. It's noted.

you missed the word "Now", didn't you? That word designates a circumstance. Note that.

henrik wrote:

I did not even say I would do it, I just asked if it was allowed. And I most certainly did not say I would do it whether or not Pascal ruled it to legal.

I never said that you would do it. I said that "Now...", meaning if you were to do such a thing "Now", then you'd be a cheater.

See, here you go again. You're saying that people are gaining significant advantage, the very definition of cheating, and then you say that you don't mean to call them cheaters, even though you just did. Then you say that I said something that I never said.

If this is a language problem, then I apologize. But you really need to learn to read more comprehensively.

Since Henrik is no longer discussing the point, but rather attacking me personally, I'm going to leave unless summoned back by more misstatements by Henrik. Enjoy.

KevinM wrote:

henrik wrote:

I did not even say I would do it, I just asked if it was allowed. And I most certainly did not say I would do it whether or not Pascal ruled it to legal.

I never said that you would do it. I said that "Now...", meaning if you were to do such a thing "Now", then you'd be a cheater.

I thought it was an indicator of time. As in "not before asking that question, but now". Might be my English that's lacking.

KevinM wrote:

See, here you go again. You're saying that people are gaining significant advantage, the very definition of cheating, and then you say that you don't mean to call them cheaters, even though you just did. Then you say that I said something that I never said.

Here I go again? You're quoting me and then stating just below the quote that I said something about "significant advantage"? Please do requote and highlight where I said those things in that quote.

johannes wrote:

Maybe we should have a "how to shuffle with sleeves" seminar at the next EC

Not a bad idea

But I do think that the core of the problem is that some people prefer to shuffle their decks using bridge shuffle and if you sleeve the deck you won't be able to bridge shuffle any more.

At least to my experience. Then again, I've only started learning to use bridge shuffling a short while ago and it is still very difficult even with unsleeved decks that are not full 90 card decks. Currently I use sleeves in regular tournaments (normally cheapo soft sleeves, but f there's Jyhad cards I use opaques) but in drafts Iäve started to play with unsleeved decks.

Bridge shuffling seems to be the most efficient way of shuffling so I totally understand people who are opposed to sleeves. However, I'm in the bandwagon of using sleeves due to the info especially Jyhad backed cards divulge to the table.


Cheating. which is different from divulging information because of the card backs, can be done by those who want to do it. With or without sleeves. Such persons should be taken behind the sauna...

Lönkka wrote:

Such persons should be taken behind the sauna...

I'll behave. I promise!

Forhead wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Such persons should be taken behind the sauna...

I'll behave. I promise!

Man, where's the fun in behaving? Especially where saunas are involved.

Such a waste...