Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we have another Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday to jump into the discussion. Enjoy.

You are the Head Judge of your local Standard PPTQ. You have collected all the decklists and round 1 has begun. While ensuring that all of the lists are present, you notice that one player has a blank line with a number next to it on his decklist. He is playing Black/White control, and has registered

(42 other cards)
4 Concealed Courtyard
6 Plains
8

What do you do? Consider when you would like to talk to the player, what you're going to tell them, and what infractions and/or penalties they will receive.

Full decklist if that is relevant

4 Gifted Aetherborn
2 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
1 Linvala, the Preserver
1 Thalia, Heretic Cathar
2 Anguished Unmaking
3 Fatal Push
2 Flaying Tendrils
2 Fumigate
4 Grasp of Darkness
1 Never / Return
2 Succumb to Temptation
4 Cast Out
3 Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
2 Liliana, the Last Hope
2 Sorin, Grim Nemesis
4 Concealed Courtyard
2 Evolving Wilds
1 Forsaken Sanctuary
6 Plains
4 Shambling Vent
8

SIDEBOARD
1 Blessed Alliance
1 Flaying Tendrils
2 Gideon of the Trials
2 Gisela, the Broken Blade
1 Lay Bare the Heart
1 Never / Return
1 Ob Nixilis Reignited
1 Quarantine Field
3 Scrapheap Scrounger
2 Transgress the Mind

Edited Joe Klopchic (June 29, 2017 11:10:41 AM)

Taking a stab at it.

At the beginning of the next round of play, The player would be issued a game loss, Deck list would be corrected to show the 8 swamps and the player will be reminded of the importance to provide a complete and accurate decklist.

The Judge(s) and Ownership should also take a step back and make sure they are providing sufficient announcements/warnings before the events start to try and minimize the penalty in the future

I do not agree with issuing a GL here. Also i want to discuss the Scenario, so here another point of view:
The issue is, the “8” implies that the only Card that could be played in that slot is a basic land. And since the player is playing a B/W Control Deck and has listed no Swamps it is very obvious what they meant. So there is nothing to gain due to writing “8” instead of “8 Swamps”. In that Scenario, if i were the Head Judge i think, i would ask the player first which card was missing, and if they answer Swamp, i would downgrade the game loss to a warning.

short excerpt from on the IPG (3.4 Tournament Error - Decklist Problem):

"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. "

Originally posted by Tristan Hof:

I do not agree with issuing a GL here. Also i want to discuss the Scenario, so here another point of view:
The issue is, the “8” implies that the only Card that could be played in that slot is a basic land. And since the player is playing a B/W Control Deck and has listed no Swamps it is very obvious what they meant. So there is nothing to gain due to writing “8” instead of “8 Swamps”. In that Scenario, if i were the Head Judge i think, i would ask the player first which card was missing, and if they answer Swamp, i would downgrade the game loss to a warning.

Agree, except that there is no downgrade path that would allow to give a Warning in this case. So, after confirming, I would only complete the list adding “Swamp” and remind the player of the importance of submitting a complete and precise decklist.

I disagree with the downgrade in this instance. You cannot confirm that “8” actually means 8 Swamps without actually checking the physical deck.

The excerpt in the IPG also says "This should be determined solely by what is written on the decklist, and not based on intent given the actual contents of the deck; needing to check the deck for confirmation is a sign that the entry is not obvious."

Personally this is cut and dry a Decklist Error. Issue a Game Loss for the next match between rounds and fix the decklist to match what the player intended to play.

This certainly falls under a Decklist Problem. The question is whether the HJ determines the error to be “clear and unambiguous”. I don't believe it is. Writing “8 Swomps” is unambiguous, a blank card name isn't.

Even though the deck list is clearly in certain colours, the thought process of reviewing the entire list to determine if there's any other coloured cards, reviewing the noted lands to determine the potentially missing basic land and then probably having to confirm with the player to be sure is enough to show that the missing card is not a obvious.

I would speak to the player to determine what the missing card is (and update the DL accordingly), advise them to take greater care with decklists to avoid such errors in future and issue a Game Loss.

Is there any other card that could even reasonably be in that position though? We know it's a basic land since this is standard and we don't have anything like relentless rats in the format and their other lands are either white or white/black. Of the 6 basic lands, only swamps makes sense since they've already listed plains.

To me this looks like it was clearly supposed to be swamps

Originally posted by Daniel Woolson:

Is there any other card that could even reasonably be in that position though? We know it's a basic land since this is standard and we don't have anything like relentless rats in the format and their other lands are either white or white/black. Of the 6 basic lands, only swamps makes sense since they've already listed plains.

To me this looks like it was clearly supposed to be swamps

Indeed, we know that the player plays 60 cards, 8 swamps, without having to check the physical deck. Rather important clue, isn't it?

Thanks everyone for joining in again this week.

Tristan jumps straight to the point with this line from Decklist Problem

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.

So the question is “Is this obvious and unambiguous?”

Its pretty clear to me that the player intended to write Swamp and is playing Swamp.

Its worth touching on what Bryan said as well

This should be determined solely by what is written on the decklist, and not based on intent given the actual contents of the deck; needing to check the deck for confirmation is a sign that the entry is not obvious

We aren't checking the deck. I can tell from just the contents of the decklist that it should be Swamp. A quick read through and I concluded that the deck was generally black and white spells, and would not play 8 of any other basic land.

As the Head Judge, you have the option to not apply Decklist Problem here. The player has submitted what appears to be an illegal decklist, but it is obvious that the card in the blank is Swamp. Double check that the player is indeed playing Swamps, and after the round find them and let them know that you fixed the list and to be more careful in the future.

I would like to note that this piece of policy is specifically head judge discretion. Unlike some other downgrades which are mandatory, you could choose to apply the game loss here and not be deviating.