Hello to everybody,
somebody asked on Facebook and Uncle Scott (Scott Marshall, for those who don't know his “official” MagicJudges nickname) tagged me and replied that I may have given more information.
The question was about deckchecks at the end of round, that were likely seen at the end of some matches on camera in the last three rounds.

Here you have one of the sections of my (private) report:
To avoid deck problems in Top8 (I believe that we had two cases of discrepancy between deck and decklists at Top8 at GPs in the last six months), during the last three rounds of Swiss we had a higher number of deckchecks.
To increase these deckchecks and therefore the probability of checking all the Top8 decks during the Swiss rounds, we also had deckchecks at the end of rounds, just after the end of matches, where we checked that the content of the deckbox (main deck + sideboard) was corresponding to what was written on the decklist.


The reason for these deckchecks is to deal with all administrative tasks (including penalties, if any need to be applied) during the Swiss round, so that competition in Top8 could be only on the table (without any penalty).
The activity was handled by the Decklists team leader (Johanna Virtanen), but I imagine that they started from the standings in round 13, verified who had already been deckchecked, had some more players deckchecked at the beginning or in the middle of next rounds, and also used the time at the end of rounds to check many more decks just after the end of matches.

Riccardo

Riccardo-

This report is fascinating. I'd like to ask follow-up questions, but if you feel you should not answer I will understand. Did this new method (I'm assuming only used at Pro Tour for now) prove to be effective? Was it worth engaging in? How was it received by players?

Cheers!
Charles

Charles:
This report is fascinating. I'd like to ask follow-up questions, but if
you feel you should not answer I will understand. Did this new method
(I'm assuming only used at Pro Tour for now) prove to be effective? Was
it worth engaging in? How was it received by players?
—

Let's see some more details together.
What can we check with a deckcheck at the end of a round/match?

We don't check if a deck is shuffled correctly.
We can check if the content of maindeck+sideboard corresponds to what is
written on the decklist. If there are differencies, policy say that we
don't apply any penalty to the past match, as it has already finished.
In case of differencies, the player can choose between modifying his
deck to make it match the decklist (no penalty, as the infraction
happened in a game/match that is already finished) and modifying the
decklist to make it match the actual content of the deck (game loss in
the following match, as the decklist has to be corrected).
We can check if the deck is somehow marked. If there are markings (and
they are considered unintentional), we don't apply any penalty (again,
we are between matches) and we help the player make sure that the deck
will not be marked before the beginning of his next match.
We don't observe if the sideboard cards are out of the maindeck.

Help my memory, is there anything else we check during a deckcheck?
(I'm writing all at once, without re-reading, and I count on you to
complete my analysis or correct me if my words are incomplete or wrong)
It looks like this type of deckchecks tends more to prevent problems in
the following matches, and this is something I like.
An added advantage is that it doesn't add time to a match; the
disadvantage might be for the players, who may want to leave the area to
take a break (I suggest telling them “have your break and come back to
us before the beginning of next round, we will keep your deck safe”).

I believe players will just need a little explanation, because the
timing of this deckcheck is different from what they usually expect.
Reassure them that it's a tournament procedure that has the goal of
helping them prevent infractions (and penalties) in the next rounds
(better than a deckcheck at the beginning of a round with a penalty,
right?) and even tell them “I saw it at the Pro Tour, and I read on our
forum that they did it to avoid decklist problems and penalties in Top8,
so it should be good, right? ^___^”

I hope I explained clearly and, please, feel free to add your suggestions.
Bye ;)

Riccardo

Riccardo-

Reviewing your list of what was checked, I'm curious if a count was done and if so what would have been done if a player was found to be playing with 59 cards (and having, for instance, 16 cards in their sideboard). Assume cheating is not a concern - since if it is, that's an entirely different conversation. This feels like a situation where we would apply a Game Loss to the start of the next round and have them fix the deck - but because this doesn't appear to fall directly in line with your explanation above I'd be interested in your opinion.

After attending your talk at GP Washington DC, this explanation only goes to further affirm your stance that if we can prevent a problem (without directly violating a directive in the MTR or IPG) we should do so. My one and only concern with the extended explanation is in liability for end of round checks and allowing players to leave and check back in for their decks. For Limited and Standard, I can get behind that as the process. For Modern/Legacy/Vintage, where deck values are considerably higher, I think I would worry about that. On the other hand, I could see players in those formats less likely to leave their deck behind anyway. :)

Thank you for taking the time to explain further, I feel that I learned a great deal from it.

Charles

Charles:
Reviewing your list of what was checked, I'm curious if a count was done
and if so what would have been done if a player was found to be playing
with 59 cards (and having, for instance, 16 cards in their sideboard).
Assume cheating is not a concern - since if it is, that's an entirely
different conversation. This feels like a situation where we would apply
a Game Loss to the start of the next round and have them fix the deck -
but because this doesn't appear to fall directly in line with your
explanation above I'd be interested in your opinion.
After attending your talk at GP Washington DC, this explanation only
goes to further affirm your stance that if we can prevent a problem
(without directly violating a directive in the MTR or IPG) we should do
so. My one and only concern with the extended explanation is in
liability for end of round checks and allowing players to leave and
check back in for their decks. For Limited and Standard, I can get
behind that as the process. For Modern/Legacy/Vintage, where deck values
are considerably higher, I think I would worry about that. On the other
hand, I could see players in those formats less likely to leave their
deck behind anyway. :)
—–

If I discover a deck with 59 and a sideboard of 16, I issue no penalty,
because the infraction happened in a game that has already finished. I
advise the player to correct his deck before presenting it for his next
matches.
If you are looking for precise quotes from our official documents,
please ask, and I am sure that there will be other judges who will copy
and paste all the necessary lines.
About a player who wants to keep his deck in sight, I am happy about
allowing him to be with his deck; making players comfortable is one of
my main goals. Note: it has never happened to me, so far.

Riccardo

Hi Riccardo,


Thank you for taking the time to write this post! I just wanted to be sure; is this deck check synonymous with the courtesy deck checks that some players expect going in to top 8? I've been under the presumption that it isn't worth the effort to do so, and I have been doing DC's in the T8. Is this slightly different since there is coverage watching every single move the players make and would notice the discrepancy?


Thanks!

Brandon:
Thank you for taking the time to write this post! I just wanted to be
sure; is this deck check synonymous with the courtesy deck checks that
some players expect going in to top 8? I've been under the presumption
that it isn't worth the effort to do so, and I have been doing DC's in
the T8. Is this slightly different since there is coverage watching
every single move the players make and would notice the discrepancy?
—
I'm actually not well aware about what a “courtesy deckcheck” actually
is; I've heard a little about them, I believe it's an American habit,
and I count on more experienced people to speak about it.
The goal of the Madrid deckchecks were to make sure that decks and
decklists of all the potential Top8 players got checked before Top8; not
just between last round and the beginning of Top8, but earlier.
Doing deckchecks earlier allows us to avoid penalties in top8, which I
believe should be avoided.
A “courtesy deckcheck” just before Top8 that shows a difference between
deck and decklist may cause a penalty in Top8 (if the player wants the
decklist to be modified).
I'm unsure that I have replied to your precise questions (I did my best
to understand your sentences, without replying with dozens of lines);
please ask if I'm missing anything.
:)

Riccardo

Just a comment or two about courtesy deck checks, to add to what Riccardo already said.

The idea of checking all Top 8 decks at the end of the Swiss, prior to the Top 8, is a very old practice; it used to be a “Best Practice”, and I remember learning it over 15 years ago. The name “Courtesy Deck Checks” is newer - I first heard that term at an early StarCityGames.com Open, back when they were called “5K” events.

It really was a courtesy - to each of the other 7 players - to have each Top 8 deck verified. However, the downsides have convinced me, and many others, to stop this practice. One huge downside is having a Top 8 match start with game 2, due to a Game Loss; it's rare, but there have been - prior to recent IPG changes - Top 8 matches that started in game 3, with each player having “earned” a Game Loss.

Another downside is the amount of time lost to track down all 8 players and their decks, and to check them.

Did they accomplish the goal? No, not always. I recall a State Championship, where a player had sideboard Scavenger Folk, right after 5th Edition had rotated out of Standard. He was deck checked during the Swiss, and again as part of the Top 8 deck checks, but it wasn't until he played that card against an L2 judge, in the quarterfinals, that it was noticed. (Ironically, when he showed me his deck before the event, I asked ‘are you sure those are still legal?’… since I wasn't judging, I didn't pursue it.)

Instead of “courtesy” checks, we should just ensure that all the Top players have been deck checked during the Swiss. I like this innovation from the Pro Tour (what we must call “The Finnish Method”, in honor of Johanna!), as it's yet another tool to achieve the ultimate goal.

d:^D