The following question was posted on the MTGJudge.ca facebook group (shameless plug for canadian magic judges :P ), and I think it will prove interesting enough to warrant some discussion.

“Two players are playing nearly identical decks (74/75 are the same) with identical sleeves. After cutting, the players grab the wrong deck, and ten turns in, player A draws the one of Tamiyo that his opponent was playing and realizes what has happened. What do?”

Personally, my impression is that both players have committed TE - D/DL because they are ultimately playing with a deck they did not register. While it's true that the players did present the correct decks originally, the fact that they are not playing with their presented decks feels like it falls under the philosophy of D/DL more than anything else. The end result would be a double GL, causing the current game to end in a draw.

Other judges disagreed. Some felt there was no penalty and that we should just call the game a draw. Others thought that GPE - GRV applies. As for what remedy to apply for GRV, some argued that as HJ they would be comfortable rewinding the game to the point when each player presented their decks, while others felt it would be alright to deviate in this case and just call the game a draw. No one seemed comfortable assigning a time extension.

What's the difference, you may ask? Well, the penalty and resulting remedy can have some effects on things like tiebreakers (by changing the number of games that need to be reported) and what upgrades players may be entitled to in future penalties, so while the solutions may seem simple on the surface they can have some subtleties that may have an effect on the later stages of the tournament.

What would you do?

Just as a place holder, I believe that we need analyze the definitions and philosophies of each penalty that seems relevant. There are, as you noted, three possible solutions at a glance:

1. D/DL Problem: The players' decks, with which they are playing, currently do not match the decklists that they had submitted.

2. GRV: The players made an error regarding their game in that they accidentally grabbed the wrong decks.

3. No infraction: Because it isn't explicitly defined in the IPG.

Personally, I believe that a GRV with a Warning to both players is the best answer out of the three, given what's explicitly in the IPG (There may be a better solution which I'll address at the end of this rant). (3): I don't believe that there isn't an associated infraction: otherwise there would not be a fix. (Infractions aren't just for giving out penalties, they are also there for identifying errors) (1): Likewise, all conditions of the D/DL infraction aren't met: the decks are, presumably, legal and were presented as such. (2): As such, we are left with a GRV. They, as the GRV definition states: “made an error or failed to follow a game procedure correctly.”

Now, does this fall under the breach of “exceptional and significant circumstances”? In my opinion, this may. Ten turns in could be a significant delay to the tournament, not to mention that we can't allow the game to go on with both players using the wrong decks. As such, the GRV could be upgraded if the HJ thought it as such. This is, of course, a judgement call to be made if such an error was made.

Edited Peter Richmond (May 15, 2013 09:32:40 PM)

Peter - at an event that I was judging recently, a player managed to spill a pint of coke on his opponent's deck. I issued some proxies for damaged cards and a time extension. I did not issue a penalty. Was I incorrect in applying a fix, as there was no infraction?

(I accept that this is also a significant and exceptional circumstance ;))

I can certainly see the argument here for both suggested infractions. However I do not feel that either really fits like a snug glove.
If I was HJ I would be comfortable with calling this an exceptional circumstance with no fitting infraction/penalty. I would have the players take their correct deck, have them shuffle and play a real game. I would not count this as a game. I would issue a time extension based on the time I spent solving the issue but not for the time they spent playing. I would give no penalty but certainly a talk to be more careful.

Cheers
Eskil Myrenberg
L2 Stockholm, Sweden

—–Original Message—–

From: Darcy Alemany
Sent: 11 May 2013 22:47:40 GMT
To: cartaginem@hotmail.com
Subject: Players take and play their opponent's deck after presenting: penalty? remedy? (Competitive REL)

The following question was posted on the MTGJudge.ca facebook group (shameless plug for canadian magic judges :P ), and I think it will prove interesting enough to warrant some discussion.

“Two players are playing nearly identical decks (74/75 are the same) with identical sleeves. After cutting, the players grab the wrong deck, and ten turns in, player A draws the one of Tamiyo that his opponent was playing and realizes what has happened. What do?”

Personally, my impression is that both players have committed TE - D/DL because they are ultimately playing with a deck they did not register. While it's true that the players did present the correct decks originally, the fact that they are not playing with their presented decks feels like it falls under the philosophy of D/DL more than anything else. The end result would be a double GL, causing the current game to end in a draw.

Other judges disagreed. Some felt there was no penalty and that we should just call the game a draw. Others thought that GPE - GRV applies. As for what remedy to apply for GRV, some argued that as HJ they would be comfortable rewinding the game to the point when each player presented their decks, while others felt it would be alright to deviate in this case and just call the game a draw. No one seemed comfortable assigning a time extension.

What's the difference, you may ask? Well, the penalty and resulting remedy can have some effects on things like tiebreakers (by changing the number of games that need to be reported) and what upgrades players may be entitled to in future penalties, so while the solutions may seem simple on the surface they can have some subtleties that may have an effect on the later stages of the tournament.

What would you do?

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/22322/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4169/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4169/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

IPG does not let us use D/DL here, unless you deviate.

The location of player libraries is not strictly defined,
thus I see nothing wrong if both players choose to keep
their libraries on the opposite sides of the table.

They commit GPE-DEC as soon as they draw from their opponent's library.

I am curious as to why you consider GRV over DEC.

Edited Denis Sokolov (May 14, 2013 02:14:24 AM)

This is definitely D/DL Problem. The players are each playing with a deck that does not match what they registered. GL for each.

How about Slow Play? If you don't count this game as a real game, both players essentially did nothing after presenting their decks.
And slow play could be upgraded: “If Slow Play has significantly affected the result of the match, the Head Judge may upgrade the penalty.”

We upgrade slow play when it has severely damaged one player's situation I believe. Both players did something wrong here and I wouldn't give a double upgraded slow play here because it feels like trying to find a way to give them a game loss which I do not think is necessary here.

If we find an infraction that fits then we give the penalty and fix outlined. If nothing fits and there's no applicable fix then we don't give a penalty and call it an exceptional circumstance.

I'm open to someone finding a good way to fit it in an infraction but my gut feeling remains that this is an exceptional circumstance :)

Cheers
Eskil Myrenberg
L2, Stockholm, Sweden

—–Original Message—–

From: Toby Hazes
Sent: 14 May 2013 13:45:59 GMT
To: cartaginem@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Players take and play their opponent's deck after presenting: penalty? remedy? (Competitive REL)

How about Slow Play? If you don't count this game as a real game, both players essentially did nothing after presenting their decks.
And slow play could be upgraded: “If Slow Play has significantly affected the result of the match, the Head Judge may upgrade the penalty.”

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/22497/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4169/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4169/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

This is not D/DL Problem because both players presented their respective legal decks that fits with their decklists.

Neither Slow Play because they were actually playing.

What happened is that they presented, grabbed the other deck and started to look the deck while they were playing it. This is looking extra cards.

This situation is very unusual, because it needs same size decks, same sleeves (and perfect size or not), same wearing on sleeves, same cards in the deck upon turn 10.

I probably will grant a time extension, because they are calling us as soon as they discovered the issue. This is not very disruptive to the tournament (ten turns are like 5-7 minutes, less extra time than a deckcheck), and we will provide a good customer service.

Just my two cents

I think it's a stretch trying to fit any infraction to this situation.

Strange things can happen, it's the job of the Head Judge to deal with these situations when they come up.

Tournament Error - Deck/Decklist Problem -
A player commits one or more of the following errors involving their deck:

• The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number of cards for the format
  
• The deck and/or decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format
  
• A card listed on a decklist is not identified by its full name, and could be interpreted as more than one card. (etc)
  
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered
  

No none of these items fits.

Game Player Error - Looking at Extra Cards
A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see.

As far as the players were concerned they drew a hand of cards from their deck. Nothing they were not entitled to see. The fact they were drawing from the wrong decks seems largely irrelevant to me, given that to all intents and purposes they were drawing from their decks.

Even Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation is pushing it a bit, given the fairly unique situation.

Let's look at what might happen if 2 players are playing very different decks with the same sleeves. Shuffle, Present, draw opening hand, a very loud “JUDGE” from both players or maybe just both players laugh at their silliness and swap decks, re-shuffle, re-present, make sure to grab the right deck this time.

Would you Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation in that situation? I suspect most judges would just share some amusement with the players and instruct them to get their decks back, repeat the pregame procedure and make sure the correct decks were picked up after that process.

What makes this significant is that the two decks are virtually identical theoretically the entire match could have been played without anyone noticing it. Although perhaps game 1 would have been completed and during sideboarding the problem would be noticed. What then?

Ultimately I think if this situation were to come up the HJ would have to decide what is best. Personally I think in the situation presented I'd have both players restart the match with the correct decks after a new pregame shuffle/present/shuffle process. Yes the event will likely have a delay, but there are many other normal situations that can cause these kinds of delays so I wouldn't be looking for a reason to Game Loss due to the potential delaying of the event.

I think Jorge and Mark have summed it up very well. I especially liked Jorge's point about providing good customer service. And, as Mark pointed out, it'd be a stretch to fit any infraction to this; not everything that goes wrong needs an infraction or penalty (but many/most need a fix).

Closing the thread, as I think we've covered all the productive points.