Judging with Your Spouse: Role Reversal

Prologue: This is a sequel to Judging with Your Spouse: A tournament report of sorts.

On October 29, my husband and I returned to the store where we first judged together. In April, we joined forces for his first time to Head Judge and my first PPTQ at all. This time we brought a lot more experience to the table (my 6th PPTQ to HJ), but it served as our first opportunity to swap roles.

We arrived early, just as before, greeted the now familiar staff, and checked the play area setup. I rounded up my husband Brian and our other floor judge, Vasilios Vetter. Brian has been mentoring Vasi and he's a regular at this store. While a second floor judge was not necessary, it provided an excellent mentoring opportunity. I always begin my events with a judge meeting, no matter how small the staff because it sets the expectations and tone for the day. I delivered my usual spiel including how to handle backups and appeals, tardiness times, and task assignments. Since Vasi covered deckcheks for me at a previous event, I assigned him to handle paper and put Brian on deckchecks. I spent a bit of time detailing my specific goals and expectations for each of them before releasing them to greet players while I conferred with the scorekeeper.

My HJ announcement to begin the event felt rehearsed and automatic, a sharp contrast from my previous experiences which had included butterflies and bumblings. Both of my floor judges preformed their respective duties with minimal guidance and I actually seemed superfluous for much of the day. Of course the day wouldn't be complete without a few interesting scenarios giving me some new stories to share.

At one point Brian picked up decks to check after the players had cut one another's decks. While that does not invalidate the deck check, it constitutes a better practice to swoop before the opponent has touched a deck to ensure that the order of the cards has not been manipulated in any way. I pointed out to Brian his suboptimal execution and that interaction constituted my first time correcting him on the floor. He started to argue with me, but then listened to what I had to say, and I could feel our working relationship evolving.

At the end of the first round, Brian called time by informing the only match still playing that the time had ended and directing them to begin turns. I explained to him that I preferred my judges to call time loudly to the entire room, even if only 1 match remains. Letting the other players hear that announcement cues the rest of them to wrap up their eating, finish games they are playing for fun, and get ready to move to the pairings board. That little heads up can save a few minutes as well as smoothing out the transition between rounds. I realize that I can be a devil for details, but it also demonstrated my emerging style as a Head Judge - little details can add value in big ways.

During round 2 I took a call at a table while Brian and Vasi checked decks. I concluded the call, which was the players asking me to help them resolve a stack with at least six things on it as they activated abilities and responded throughout the resolution. Then, Brian approached to let me know that he had issued a Game Loss for a Deck/Decklist Problem during his deck check. The penalty, a straightforward 59 cards registered, hadn't required any investigation. Although I had asked to be informed of GLs, Brian made the call to not interrupt me while with the players and handled the GL himself. He made the correct decision and I let him know that I appreciated both his handling the situation and moving the event along and his communication with me afterwards.

On a later call, he answered a player's question about a spell, but by pointing out that it had an Escalate option, he inadvertently gave away information to the opponent. Afterwards he immediately told me that he messed up and should have taken the question away from the table. I could see his embarrassment for making the mistake, but he quickly resolved to speak more carefully next time. Seeing him improve as a judge right before my eyes offered me a rare look into another judge's development.

My most memorable call occurred at a table where I watched a match. The adjacent match then asked me about a situation where a player wanted to activate a creature's ability in response to casting a spell that required sacrificing a creature. He planned to activate, then sac so that he would get both the ability and the spell. I explained that he could not do this since the sacrifice of the creature constituted part of the spell's cost and therefore the creature would not be around after that spell went on the stack, so he could no longer activate its ability. Both players expressed understanding of the situation. Then the opponent queried, "Isn't that a penalty?" I responded that is wasn't and play resumed. I especially did not want to penalize a player whose opponent seemed to be angling for a penalty to gain an advantage. While overall, the GRV would not have had much effect, I didn't want a player telling me how to handle a call.

Brian had been watching and told me that it should have been a penalty because the player had already done it. I stated that it wasn't because the player was asking about it and had not yet taken the action. After talking with him more, I realized that I had misunderstood the player and that he had in fact already activated the ability when I was called, but had reversed his actions before I observed the board state. After the match ended, I sought out each player and explained my mistake and clarified that it should have been a penalty. Both players graciously accepted the information and the nonactive player seemed especially appreciative.

The remainder of the day passed without incident. Players played, we judged, and the TO provided yummy sandwiches for lunch. With two competent floor judges, I had time to pull Vasi aside for a chat about state-based actions. I enjoyed the opportunity to do some mentoring and develop my own skills as well. The Top 8 moved quickly with no issues, and we finished with a debrief meeting.  In the past I've received lots of positive feedback from my floor judges about the value in taking the time to talk after the event, so it's a step I never omit. Even at the end of a long day, the chance to provide closure and honest feedback seems to be invaluable.

On the way home, Brian and I conversed about the fact that we could see each other's mistakes and learn and grow together as judges. We can encourage one another as we mature, but we also each follow our own paths within the judge program. By allowing ourselves to be vulnerable with one another we can share not only the details of various calls or techniques, but also the feelings that come with them. It adds a new dimension to both our marriage and our judge careers when the two overlap.