Searching Your Deck

[SomethingElse]

As the other posts in Ask The Masters, you are allowed to search your deck, like let's say Holon Mentor, and search for "up to 3", 1 to 3, only allowing 0 if you're opponent can not "find" a basic"
If you're opponent were to farmer the previous turn 3 basics in, and mentor the next turn saying there's 0 basics in the deck, is that common knowledge? Should a judge be allowed to confirm this by looking in the deck and acknowledging that none are in there? Or is a player allowed to lie in front of an opponent when it can be blatantly obvious when there are basics in the deck?

 

[Rainbowgym]

All contents of a deck are "secret' as long they are in the deck, no matter if they have been out of the deck and put back in.
Because of this a trainercard can fail "on purpose", has nothing to do with lie, but with how the game is played.
Cards open on the table like pokemon in play, discard and possible head up prizes are public (common) knowledge. You cannot refer to 'secret/hidden' cards and say "I know you have basics in your deck", even if you have seen them shuffling in, at the moment they are in the deck they are secret/hidden/not public/common knowledge again.

 

[SomethingElse]

I understand it is not public knowledge, but shouldn't a judge be allowed to confirm that a search has failed?

 

[NoPoke]

For a while that was how the game was played. An opponent could ask a judge to confirm that a search failed because there really was no suitable card present in the deck. That was then and this is now. Now the game has no memory of the actual contents of your deck or even of your hand. Any legally possible card could be present or absent.

Which is better? I have no idea. I didn't have any problems as a judge previously . I don't think I was ever asked to confirm the contents of a deck after a failed search. I do rather like the simplicity of the current approach. I'd take issue with the game encouraging us to lie or misrepresentation or any other wrong that requires deliberate planning.

 

[PokePop]

As NoPoke notes, we used to rule that way.
But feedback from PCL in Japan said to not do that.
That deck contents were always secret from the game's perspective and a deck search could always fail on purpose even in a case like you outline.

 

[Rainbowgym]

I understand it is not public knowledge, but shouldn't a judge be allowed to confirm that a search has failed?

No because there is no need to confirm this.

 

[PSYCO829]

the only way you would be able to not be able to do a deck search would be with a power like ledian d or pidgeot frlg where you can get any card
i think since its obvious that you have cards in your deck, i believe you have to grab something when using their powers

 

[PokePop]

the only way you would be able to not be able to do a deck search would be with a power like ledian d or pidgeot frlg where you can get any card
i think since its obvious that you have cards in your deck, i believe you have to grab something when using their powers

Yes, the fact that you have cards at all is public knowledge.

 

[SomethingElse]

Does this also mean for Master Ball, that you do now have a choice of not taking a pokemon?

 

[Bobby]

the only way you would be able to not be able to do a deck search would be with a power like ledian d or pidgeot frlg where you can get any card
i think since its obvious that you have cards in your deck, i believe you have to grab something when using their powers

If you're out of potion then there's no point in Ledian d anyway, but whatever...

So basically, even if you and your opponent both know there's something in the deck, you can fail the search.

You would be able to do something like play two great balls in a row and fail both searches, right?

 

[Dom]

It IS a lie, in real life, whether the game knows it or not

=/

But I guess this way probably works out better, if its officially optional it saves it becoming a problem.

 

[PokePop]

Is it a lie to bluff in Poker?
In a game, what the game allows, the game allows.
There is no "lie".
You are applying real life motives to game actions.

 

[Dom]

If you explicitly say "there's no X there" then its a lie plain and simple. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie no.3, an innacurate or false statement. If you just elect not to take anything then it isn't.

 

[PSYCO829]

If you explicitly say "there's no X there" then its a lie plain and simple. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie no.3, an innacurate or false statement. If you just elect not to take anything then it isn't.

you dont have to say there isnt anything, you can say i wont be grabbing a basic when you search with great ball
and last time i checked, there is nothing in the rule book about lying when it isnt cheating

 

[Dom]

That's exactly what I just said. Note the key word "If" at the beginning of the sentence. I was being literal.

 

[DragonairMaster8]

so if you use night maintenence for three chimchar and then use great ball/ you can say there's nothing there?

 

[Dom]

Yup

 

[DragonairMaster8]

awesome

 

[yoshi1001]

I believe the one exception is a case where public information can be used to indicate that a search cannot succeed (for example, If you tried using MT Abra's second attack and all your Alakazams were in play, your discard pile, or flipped-over prizes, that would not be legal).

Of course, if a person is repeatedly using search cards and finding nothing, you can still be penalized for cheating if a judge determines that is the only reason for playing that card.

 

[PokePop]

If you tried using MT Abra's second attack and all your Alakazams were in play, your discard pile, or flipped-over prizes, that would not be legal).

Interesting point. I'll bring it up for discussion at the Rules Team.

Of course, if a person is repeatedly using search cards and finding nothing, you can still be penalized for cheating if a judge determines that is the only reason for playing that card.

No, that's not cheating unless it involves slow play or stalling. It's fine if it's the "only reason" for playing the card.