Subject: Re: Richmond PTQ report
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:02:55 -0400
From: David Doust <efreet@mindspring.com>
To: animalia@intrepid.net
CC: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

I just read your article on the Richmond qualifier and am really distrubed
to see some of the things that you were posting:

You obviously did not know the story and decided for yourself with none of
the facts of the situation. This was the real situation: Player A won one
game, player B also won one game. Time was called, and I asked them about
their life total about 5 minutes prior to that. Then all of a sudden Player
A told me that he won the match. I questioned him how he won the match in 5
minutes and he said that he was going to win soon so Player B conceded the
game to him, so that he would a chance to make top 8. I then told him that
concesion is only based on your own advantage, meaning that you can concede
to save time, so that you can get another game in or to avoid being Jester's
Capped. They argued that they could concede anytime, and I told them that if
they insisted, that I would disqualify them for cheating.(not for
unsportsmanlike conduct) This is pretty much standard penalty for this kind
of infraction.

If you would like to drop out and play side events, that is fine, but once
you enter a match, you must finish the match! Throwing matches is consider
cheating.

Second: Paris mulligan.
You must have been mistaken, or not paying attention. You can Paris for
whatever reason you want, each tiem drawing 1 less card. What I was
describing to the players was that the paris mulligan was not in conjunction
with the all land or no land mulligan, meaning that if you have no land or
all land you do not get a "free" 7 card mulligan.

I have been a level 3 judge for 3 years now, judging in over 1000 events
including every Pro-tour final and the finals of last year's World
Championship. I know the rules very well, and certainly am very respected in
the tournament community. I would suggest that next time if you have a
problem with rumors of logistical errors or rulings that you do not agree
with, that you discuss that with the head judge before you go on a public forum.

David Doust
New Wave Mail Order