I suspect it starts with something like “in the context of a game or other competition, if my opponent does something unexpected, and I don’t understand why, it’s probably bad news for me”, with an emotional response of suspicion. Then when your explanation is about why shuffling the cards is neutral rather than being about why you did something unexpected, it triggers an “if someone I’m suspicious of tries to convince me with logic rather than just assuring me that they’re harmless, they’re probably trying to get away with something” heuristic.
Also, most people seem to make the assumption, in cases like that, that they aren’t going to be able to figure out what you’re up to on the fly, so even flawless logic is unlikely to be accepted—the heuristic is “there must be a catch somewhere, even if I don’t see it”.
I suspect it starts with something like “in the context of a game or other competition, if my opponent does something unexpected, and I don’t understand why, it’s probably bad news for me”, with an emotional response of suspicion. Then when your explanation is about why shuffling the cards is neutral rather than being about why you did something unexpected, it triggers an “if someone I’m suspicious of tries to convince me with logic rather than just assuring me that they’re harmless, they’re probably trying to get away with something” heuristic.
Also, most people seem to make the assumption, in cases like that, that they aren’t going to be able to figure out what you’re up to on the fly, so even flawless logic is unlikely to be accepted—the heuristic is “there must be a catch somewhere, even if I don’t see it”.