If you’ve read Part Two of my report, you can see that head judging an SJC requires you to jump into a myriad of roles, from a manager of people to a hostage negotiator when dealing with unruly spectators. In today’s final part of my report, I have more tales from the trenches to share with you all, as I deal with player investigations, and other exciting drama!

Chris Goff, my deck check team leader, approached me during round 9 with an interesting problem. During one of Chris’s thorough deck checks, he turned up a series of marked cards in a player’s deck. The cards in question were Heavy Storm, Breaker the Magical Warrior, Premature Burial, and Mystical Space Typhoon, and they had little or no “rigidity” to them. It was like someone dunked them in water. I had seen this kind of thing before: I personally own a copy of Mirror Force with those qualities. The Heavy Storm and the Breaker the Magical Warrior were the worst (flimsiest) of the four. At least the other two cards had some rigidity to them.

Jeff Piroozshad was present during the inspection, and we decided that this definitely warranted an investigation. Actually, Jeff pointed out that the two flimsiest cards both worked to destroy cards in the back row. Chris went to get the player for us, and Jeff and I were shocked when they came back: we knew the player Chris had in tow. Personally

To say that I was angry is a bit of an understatement. The player (a veteran of countless SJCs and someone familiar with tournament guidelines) should have known better than to enter an event of this caliber with damaged cards. I took the situation very personally. “How dare he put me in such a position!” I thought. However, I also realized that I needed to be as professional as possible, so with great restraint I instructed the player to wait by the tournament stage while Jeff, Chris, and I privately discussed the situation.

When he left, the first words out of my mouth were, “I can’t believe that he’s a cheater, but I can’t ignore the evidence in front of me either.” Normally, I could conduct an investigation like this with only myself and the UDE representative present. However, I wanted Chris to be involved because I trusted his instincts, and because he did not know the player personally. We went back to the player, and asked him why he thought he was there. The player responded with, “I think there’s some problem with my cards.” His answer did not satisfy me, so I pulled out the marked cards (face down) and asked him if they felt unusually flimsy to him. He agreed that they were flimsy. I then asked him if he could guess which of those cards were flimsy, and he replied, “I think one of them is Heavy Storm.” At this point, we left the player alone to confer amongst ourselves.

I have to admit, I was torn. I had a clear case of marked cards, and my real job now was to determine if the player intended to cheat with them. I thought about the evidence supporting my decision to disqualify him for cheating: four cards (very powerful and important), all easily distinguishable from the rest of his deck. I had given the penalty Marked Cards-Major only once before (the ruling comes when you feel that the player did not intend use the markings to his advantage), and I used the following criteria to resolve the situation: could these cards, in the normal course of tournament wear-and-tear, wind up in a marked condition? If the answer is yes, then it goes a long way toward establishing good intentions on the player’s part. As I said earlier, I personally own a very flimsy copy of Mirror Force. I did not dunk it into water on purpose. It just happens to be a very old copy, and I never treated it with especial care, particularly when I was shuffling. So I knew for a fact that cards might wind up in this condition without any bad intent on the part of the player.

Normally, when I conduct an investigation like this, I try to gather as much information about the player’s character as I can. In this case, I was second-guessing myself: my personal feelings might get in the way of making a fair decision. I couldn’t believe that the player in question would deliberately mark his cards to cheat. I decided to talk to him. I asked if he thought he would get in trouble for using cards like these. He glumly responded with, “I’ve always used these cards, and I’ve never gotten in trouble before, which is why I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong by using them.” I sighed outwardly and inwardly: he displayed that kind of short-sightedness on a regular basis.

I made a note of the time, and realized that I had spent about fifteen minutes conducting this investigation. I needed to make a decision. I brought up my concerns to Jeff and Chris about my personal knowledge of the player’s character and whether or not that might bias my decision favorably.

Jeff told me that there was no bias involved here at all. He stated that I was doing my job by taking into account all the information I had available to me (which includes my knowledge of the player’s character). He stated that when tournament officials investigate players, they always ask other officials if they know anything about the player’s character, since that information can help determine an intent to cheat. In my case, Jeff said, I can bypass that part, since I already have an accurate gauge of the player’s character.

Chris Goff was the one who finally snapped me back to reality. He bluntly asked, “Simon, what does your gut say? What does your heart tell you? Don’t think about it, just answer.”

I immediately responded with, “That player out there is not a cheater.” To which Chris responded, “Then we’re done here, and we can get this thing moving along.”

We went back to the player, and informed him that I had two choices: either assign him a match loss for Marked Cards-Major, or disqualify him from the event for cheating. I then asked him if he would like to say anything before I announced my decision.

The player simply responded, “I’ll accept and respect whatever decision you make, just please don’t ban me.”

I then told the player he would receive a match loss for Marked Cards-Major. Jeff proceeded to give the player a very stern lecture on how important it is not to use cards with such easily identifiable marks. The player seemed very upset, but nodded and accepted our decision.

Feroze Ramcharan and the rest of the team leaders did a wonderful job scheduling food breaks for the judges that would not significantly impact the tournament floor. Someone brought me some food around round 6, but I was reluctant to leave the tournament desk and go eat (the staff needed to eat all food in a partitioned area available to them).

Eventually, however, my fatigue started to show, because after I announced the start of round 8, both Simon Choy and Feroze Ramcharan confronted me. Simon asked me if I had eaten yet, and I said no. They both told me to go eat. I tried to come up with some lame excuse to not leave the tournament, but Simon insisted. I reluctantly left the stage and took a food break. I think there was a conspiracy involved: Matt Villamaino just happened to be there sorting out packs for prize support. When I finished eating, he told me not to go yet, and just relax for another ten minutes. The whole thing smelled contrived.

Bottom line? I was genuinely touched by everyone’s concern for my well-being. After all, the tournament does not need its head judge hungry and tired, and I appreciated my staff looking out for me as much as I was looking out for them.

There have been some interesting discussions lately about whether it aids the players to post standings before the final round or not. Chris Goff, as the head judge of SJC Chicago 2007, chose not to post standings before the final round at his event. It went over fairly well and I felt that I should try it for my SJC.

So when I paired round 10, I waited to see if players would complain about the lack of posted standings. None of them did. A few players talked to me about it the next day and they said that it was awesome we chose to do it that way, since it prevented players from conceding to one another and making it more fair for everyone.

Day Two: Top 16 Playoffs

I used four judges for the Top 16 area: Chris Goff, Simon Choy, Paul Fahy and John Rocha. For the beginning round, each judge sat at one table (each table had two matches going on), with instructions to keep an eye on those two matches. When we got to the Top 8, I told the judges to actively table judge each match they were assigned to (i.e., keep track of life points).

I also had another judge, Neal Nakatani, handle crowd control. Neal’s job was to make sure the crowd did not get too loud or too close to the Top 16 area. Not only did he do a superb job, but he was extremely helpful in spotting any potential problems with marked cards during the Top 16 deck checks.

After determining our Top 4, my TO suggested that we give the players a 30-minute break for lunch. While I resisted the idea at first, I soon realized that it made good sense, and the Top 4 competitors looked very grateful when we gave them that break.

Aside from the frenzy of deck checking in the beginning, we had no significant issues during the Top 16 playoffs. I did make sure that a judge was in place to intercept any excitable members of the crowd from bum rushing the winner of the event. Even after a Top 16 ends, the winners still need to sign for their prizes, and it makes things much easier if we keep the area blocked off and carefully supervised until they actually have their prizes in hand.

That’s pretty much my report of head judging SJC Durham. I’m so grateful for the quality staff who worked very, very hard to make sure this event was a success. Whenever someone told me, “Simon, good job,” I would tell them they were giving credit to the wrong person. Pulling off an event like this requires trust and teamwork, and I felt privileged to work with such an august company of judges.

I would like to thank Star City Games (especially Nicholas Sabin) for their wonderful support. I’m truly blessed to work with an organizer who was always available and paid such meticulous attention to detail.

I would also like to thank Jeff Piroozshad for being a fantastic resource in running a successful event. Jeff, you truly are the best, and I hope UDE Organized Play realizes how lucky they are to have you.

I need to thank Dan Scheidegger for taking time out of his personal schedule to help me with rulings before and during the event. Yu-Gi-Oh! Research & Development is very fortunate to have such a dedicated individual running that department.

Finally, to all the judges, thank you all for your work, your dedication, and your trust. People like you make such quality events possible.

Simon Sangpukdee has been judging the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG at the premier event level since February of 2004. He is a Yu-Gi-Oh! level 3 judge and has been on staff for three Yu-Gi-Oh! National Championships and two Yu-Gi-Oh! World Championships. He is currently working on his Master's Degree in English and resides in Louisville, KY. If you have any questions or comments about this report, he can be reached via email at baldnbeautifuljudge@yahoo.com.