I think the regulations need to say something about the orientation of the puzzle before inspection. Currently, because nothing is stated, the orientation at the start can be assumed to be random. However, since there is nothing in the regulations to enforce this, nothing is done by the judges to ensure that this is the case. I noticed when competing in the UK open, that I often started with white/yellow on top (making inspection easier). I think leaving the orientation up to chance really makes it inconsistent. Depending on the scrambler/judge competitors may be at an advantage if the cube is uncovered with an orientation they're used to. For me personally, I scramble at home with yellow top, blue front and pick up my cube expecting exactly this. If before inspection I toss the cube into the air and start from a random orientation it can add a good couple of seconds onto the inspection time, which means a lot for a ZZ user! The topic was also touched on by Lucas here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=434&p=2039&hilit=inspection+orientation#p2039 I would personally prefer if orientation was fixed before inspection, rather than random. Nevertheless, I would prefer if the regulations enforced either one of the two, so that I know what to expect. Not enforcing it seems to me like doing hand scrambles. You can't guarantee a fair competition because the difficulty of the solve depends on the scrambler/judges.

I don't agree that the difficulty of the solve depends on the scrambler/judges. A cube rotation takes what, less than a second? It's also usually done while picking the puzzle up. I envision implementing a rule to enforce a set orientation would be difficult. Enforcing randomised orientation would be awkward. As it stands at the moment, it's 'random enough'. Even if you consider that a set orientation everytime produced by predictable scramblers would be unfair to some, it's really not a significant enough amount to require a rule forcing people to do otherwise (somehow).

I think the biggest issue you have is that there's so many color patterns you can't always do "yellow top blue front", so then it leads to a huge complex rule "Yellow top, blue front, otherwise lightest top and darkest front." Yes, I know we have that for scrambling, but scramblers require more cube knowledge than judges. What would you do if the cube was placed incorrectly? Get a new scramble? Have it placed again properly, but with the same scramble? What about other puzzles, should they be placed a certain way?

[quote="Thom":gqr0m5ig] A cube rotation takes what, less than a second? It's also usually done while picking the puzzle up. [/quote:gqr0m5ig] Not for me. I timed myself, just orienting a scrambled cube (with yellow-top, blue-front) from a random position and got the following results: 1.50, (1.33), 2.25, 1.45, 1.46, 1.46, (2.93), 2.26, 1.67, 1.51 => 1.78 sec average I used a stackmat timer, and started with a post-it note covering the cube. Try it yourself. [quote="Thom":gqr0m5ig] I envision implementing a rule to enforce a set orientation would be difficult. Enforcing randomised orientation would be awkward. [/quote:gqr0m5ig] Not at all. Why not just ask the scrambler to set down the cube in the same orientation it was scrambled in. If the judge then does the same it will guarantee the same (white/lightest top, green/darkest front) orientation each time. Similarly, enforcing random orientation just requires a scrambler to dictate the orientation to scramble from to begin with (this feature already exists in most of the official WCA scramble programs). If the same rules as above are followed then that will ensure the scrambled cube always has random orientation. EDIT: I just checked the scramble programs. For all cube dimensions (possibly apart from 3x3) this feature exists. It probably isn't needed for 2x2 because it doesn't really have an 'orientation'. Similarly, with Square-1 and Pyraminx, the orientation is dictated by the scramble. Again, with Megaminx, the scrambling technique ensures a random orientation. [quote="BryanLogan":gqr0m5ig] What would you do if the cube was placed incorrectly? Get a new scramble? Have it placed again properly, but with the same scramble? [/quote:gqr0m5ig] If going for the fixed orientation option then (provided they haven't picked up the cube to start inspecting) competitors could ask for it to be re-oriented. This wouldn't be an issue for the random orientation strategy because the competitor wouldn't know if it had been placed 'correctly'.

I don't think this is that much of an issue. It bothers me sometimes on square-1, when the puzzle is backwards and I have to turn it around, but it only takes a second and I'm inspecting anyway, so I'm going to be doing cube rotations already.

If you use a method which leaves little room for contingency during inspection it is quite an issue. Another way it could be fixed quite easily, is if competitors were allowed to ask the judge which way round to orient the cube before inspection. Would this actually be permissible under the current regulations? I'll be at a competition this weekend and it would help quite a bit.

I think it used to be included in the regulations that you could ask for a certain orientation, but that regulation dropped, although I'm not sure why. I think having random orientation is fine. Because having a fixed orientation has "advantages" for some people, and being able to choose an orientation is annoying/takes time. The only time I noticed orientation issues is for BLD, where reorienting is actually included in the time.

[quote="joey":1h52lo1s]I think it used to be included in the regulations that you could ask for a certain orientation, but that regulation dropped, although I'm not sure why. [/quote:1h52lo1s] You used to be able to request a certain scramble orientation (instead of white on top and green in front). However, I believe some people would watch the first few solves and request certain combinations to give themselves a good white cross. I'm not sure if that's why the rule was removed or just because it was more complexity than was needed.

So maybe the competitor could ask the judge the orientation he want to have ? That's a solution. Othewize, we already have a regulation for cube orientation for scrambling. We could just say that the cube should be presented with the same orientation to the competitor.

[quote="deadalnix":3rpkp26d]So maybe the competitor could ask the judge the orientation he want to have ? That's a solution.[/quote:3rpkp26d] Certainly not. It's not a matter of "orientation" (strange concept), it's a matter of knowing where some pieces are located. If people are asking for a given configuration for centers, I'll ask for the white-blue-red corner where I want it to be. Since the cube configuration should be random, this should be included in the scrambling process. But there are practical issues...

Totally agree with Gilles, placing the cube in any position other than random is assisting the solve (though only minor) and thus is not to be preferred. Normally after a scramble the cube will rotate on it's own most of the time by: - putting the cube down - judge picking it up, - cube rotating under the cover while walking - putting the cube on the table on the cover)

Gilles make a good point. I do agree that the orientation should be random.

Well, I think the regulations should say [b:3dwyf7y4]something[/b:3dwyf7y4]. Either that the competitor has the right to ask for a particular orientation or that he is not allowed to. In my experience, most judges are unsure what to do if you ask them if they could place the cube in a certain way (and many of them, therefore, will just do it). I personally don't mind, at least not with regular events, but I think it's an issue with blindsolving where "inspection time" counts.