Judges, a new IPG is upon us! While it isn't quite in effect yet (not until July 18th), please answer this question using the new IPG as your guide. As with all Silver scenarios, L2+ judges should wait until Friday to respond.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1109

While counting decklists for your Post-M15 Standard GPT, you notice on SeaCat’s list he had written 4x “U/G painland”, 4x “U/G Temple”, 4x “U/G Shockland”.

What do you do?

Edited Benjamin McDole (July 23, 2014 05:39:44 PM)

Is it “U/G Painland”, etc. As in that is what he actually wrote?

This is format-dependent.

U/G Temple unambiguously refers to Temple of Mystery, and U/G Shockland unambiguously refers to Breeding Pool. So there are no problems there.

However, formats that allow both the Tempest set and any set in which the cycle of lands from Apocalypse was printed (those being that set, Ninth Edition, Tenth Edition and Magic 2015) have two different cards to which “U/G painland” could refer: Yavimaya Coast and Skyshroud Forest. So while this is unambiguous for a Standard or Modern GPT, it is not unambiguous in a Legacy GPT.

The applicable penalty is Tournament Error - Deck/Decklist Problem, but at a Standard or Modern GPT I would not issue the penalty as allowed by the IPG. At a Legacy GPT, I would issue the penalty and give the player a Game Loss as prescribed by the IPG.

EDIT: And I see that literally one second before I submitted my response the scenario was altered to specify Standard post-Magic 2015. In that case my answer is, as per the above reasoning, that I do not issue the penalty.

Edited Daniel Pareja (July 16, 2014 07:55:24 PM)

Yes. If it isn't clear, the decklist in question looks like this (in addition to another 48 cards):

4 U/G Painland
4 U/G Temple
4 U/G Shockland

I agree. In a Standard environment UG Shock/Temple/Pain refer to one card (each, naturally). I would amend the Deck List with the proper name, ensure that the player knows that in the future he should write the actual names of the card instead of a ‘shorthand’ recognizable name.

Understandably, I would check with the HJ before talking to the player in order to ensure that we are on the same page of music.

If I am not the head judge I will take it to the head judge to see if he desires to issue no penalty. As head judge I would not issue any penalty. However, I would inform SeaCat that his choice of not properly naming his lands will essentially guarantee a deck check in almost every event he plays in. Since about one in every four deck checks tends to end in a penalty, he is playing with fire that is likely to eventually burn him.

I believe (off the top of my head) that if a card is uniquely identifiable in its format by its shorthand, then the shorthand is acceptable in lieu of the card name. In this case, “shockland”, “painland”, and “temple” plus a color combination are unique identifiers for their respective cards, and as such no penalty would be awarded. I may consider advising the player not to do so in the future, because, as stated above, “painland” is not a unique identifier in larger formats (nor is Temple, I believe, but not 100% sure on that and don't feel like scouring Gatherer at the moment to verify). That said, depending on how busy I or my judge team (assuming I'm the HJ here) is, I may not bother with the advising part.

As far as I remember shorthands are only okay for named characters (like Thassa or any planeswalker) and only if they're unique in the format. However, in this case we have lands without a special name, so this doesn't apply and we have a infraction. The question is whether it is obvious and I would say it is, because when I read this question I knew which card was meant within a second. Therefore I would issue a TE-D/DP and suggest the HJ to downgrade it to a Warning.

According to the IPG, cards have to be identified by the full name (except for Legendary or Planeswalker cards, if their names are not ambigous). So there is a TE-Deck/Decklist Problem, which is normally a Game Loss. However, in a Standard format each of those decklist entries (“UG Shockland”, “UG Painland”, “UG Temple”) obviously refers to only one card each, so after consultation with the HJ I would downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

/edit: Then I would update the decklist with the proper English names of the cards.

Edited Tobias Rolle (July 17, 2014 04:39:19 AM)

I won't issue a penalty here. In standard, there is no confusion on what these lands are. But i would speak with SeaCat and advise him to write the proper name of cards he plays on his deck list. There is no confusion with these names for me (I'm used to these shortcuts), but if the head judge of another tournament isn't this would definitely cause SeaCat a game loss. A proper name card can be confused with another and that's why we register decks this way.

Oddly there is no mentions of representing cards by their names in the MTR.

Since its a Post-M15 Standard GPT we need the new IPG to determine if there is an infraction here. We have three unclear names written on the decklist, but the three cards are easy to identify without needing to check the deck itself ( Breeding Pool, Yavimaya Coast and Temple of Mystery ). All three cards are obvios, so i wont issue a penalty (if i'm the HJ).

I would take the chance to educate SeaCat that we expect players to write down the complete name of a card instead of “shortcuts”.

Just realized it isn't even a Warning anymore with the new IPG. So I like to change my opinion to no penalty instead of a Warning. Besides I want to add that there is no need to check the deck for confirmation since all lands are the same combination of colours and it is obvious he plays U/G

Before reading other responses:

Under the new IPG, I would personally consider this an unambiguous decklist, referring to Yavimaya Coast, Temple of Mystery, and Breeding Pool, respectively. Update the decklist to reflect this. SeaCat gets no penalty, but I'd caution them and encourage them to always use the full, unambiguous English name of all cards on their decklist.

After reading other responses:

If I'm the head judge, I would issue no penalty (but encourage correct decklist) as above. If I'm not the Head Judge, I would inform them of the situation, and it would be their determination.

I've seen several people mention conferring with the HJ. While this is standard operating procedure to downgrade penalties, it is not necessary if there is no infraction. Using the old IPG, conferring with the HJ would be necessary, as the Game Loss should be downgraded to a Warning.

In this case, the pertinent portion of the IPG is as follows:
“A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card.”

The first half of this clearly applies. However, there is only one interpretation for each of the cards listed, meaning that no infraction has been committed, and no penalty should be applied.

Originally posted by Robert Brown:

I've seen several people mention conferring with the HJ. While this is standard operating procedure to downgrade penalties, it is not necessary if there is no infraction. Using the old IPG, conferring with the HJ would be necessary, as the Game Loss should be downgraded to a Warning.

In this case, the pertinent portion of the IPG is as follows:
“A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card.”

The first half of this clearly applies. However, there is only one interpretation for each of the cards listed, meaning that no infraction has been committed, and no penalty should be applied.

The ipg states this

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until
the point at which they are discovered. The Head Judge may choose to not issue this penalty if they believe that what the player wrote on their decklist is obvious and unambiguous, even if it is not the full, accurate name of the
card

Edited Kyle Connelly (July 17, 2014 02:13:15 PM)