The appropriate fix here seems to be to swoop in and do a deck check to determine what is going on. I think it is pretty clear we are dealing with TE/DDLP and we will be issuing a game loss. Once the deck check is complete, we will need to go ahead and get the deck list fixed. We should also take a moment to explain to the player the importance if making sure to list every card in the deck, clearly and concisely. Once finished, sit the player down, explain the situation, and give the appropriate time extension.

Clearly by leaving the line blank, we are dealing with a card title that is neither “obvious nor unambiguous.” Therefore the ruling and the game loss penalty.

I think “23 ” will always require us to check the deck.

The player was distracrcted at the moment he wrote “23 ”. Maybe he plays 23 lands, but a few of them are non basics, we can´t tell that for sure. Would anyone be surprised if the “23 ” turned out to be 21 Islands and 2 Radiant Fountains? I guess noone would be sursprised, at least I wouldn´t be, so I see the need to check what is actually going on in the deck.

And with all that said and taking note that someone earlier said “when you need to check, it´s likely a GL”, I would hand out a GL and stay away from letting this error go wihout a penalty.

I wonder if a more accurate test than “when you need to check, it's likely a GL” would be to say “If you are perfectly comfortable fixing the decklist and signing off on it without checking the deck or talking to the player, there's no penalty.” If someone write “GW Scryland” I could cross it off and write “Temple of Plenty” and be perfectly content. I couldn't fill in the “23 _______” with “23 islands” until I checked the deck.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

"If you are perfectly comfortable fixing the decklist and signing off on it without checking the deck or talking to the player, there's no violation."

I like this Marc.

Time to wrap it up!

This week our question focused on this passage from the IPG:

Originally posted by IPG 3.5 Philosophy:

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

So the issue is fundamentally what a player could conceivably mean by “23.” As Ernst Jan Plugge correctly points out, format is potentially important here due to the existence of Snow-Covered basics, but when we wrote this scenario, the intent was for it to be a Standard event. With that context, there are only 5 cards of which a player could play 23 copies, and those are the basic lands. Of the basic lands, only “Island” makes sense in the context of the rest of the list, which is mono blue.

Some consideration has been given to the possibility that “23” may mean “23 assorted lands.” While this could theoretically happen, it is not consistent with the way players write actually deck lists. If you see a list that says “4 Bolt” that means “4 Lightning Bolt,” not “3 Lightning Bolt, 1 Forked Bolt.” In much the same way, it would be very easy for a rushed player to write 23 and leave it blank with 23 copies of the same card. It would not make nearly as much sense for him to write “23” when he meant “17 Island, 4 Temple of Mystery, 2 Radiant Fountain.”

As such, it is the opinion of the Knowledge Pool team that 23 unambiguously means “23 Islands” and the deck list should be corrected without penalty. No follow-up deck check is required.

I think it is important to ask:

If it was a Modern / Legacy event, what is the opinion of the team on it. I know we don't twist the situation of the Pool, but since the way it was written gave interpretation for this, I believe it is important to talk about it.

Some consideration has been given to the possibility that “23” may mean “23 assorted lands.” While this could theoretically happen, it is not consistent with the way players write actually deck lists.

There are lots of players who do this, including myself. I always write “24 LANDS”, then list my lands below that. Once I almost turned in a decklist like that without listing the lands because I was in a hurry.

I am also doing this, so it seems to me that finding the “23” to be an obvious call a bit lenient.

23 by itself is not unambiguous. There are 5 cards that this could be.
I don't like the line of logic that includes “in the context of the other cards on the list”. That philosophy is ambiguous.

I could be swayed by an argument that went something like this:

I do think “23” leaves reasonable doubt that the list is complete, but I think we have to assume decklists are complete.

If you assume the list is complete:
the IPG under TE-D/DL Philosophy says,
“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”,

I don't think “23” reasonably allows a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they would be discovered.

In summary we have to assume the DL is complete and 23 is not ambiguous enough to allow a player to manipulate their deck to their advantage.

I still think this is gray area.

I quote Toby Elliot : If you aren’t sure if it’s obvious, it’s not obvious.

We can not suppose there are only X cards that this could be only with “23”

In this situation, I need to check his deck, so this is not clear.

I find this ruling intriguing.

I agree that it is clearly the most logical situation that the missing name would be 23 Islands, but I would absolutely want to be verifying the list with a deck check (personally) to make sure nothing shady is afoot. As the original commenter (I forget your name and my browser makes finding it out difficult) suggested, I feel the correct action would be to carry out the deck check as normal, and downgrade to warning if 23 Islands (or at least 23 of the same, legal card - swamp or forest or shadowborn apostle or…) are found. Any deviation from that warrants the full penalty. I'd also be fine with issuing no warning if the deck had 23xlegal card, but not carrying out a deck check seems to open a pretty sizable loophole for people to get away with shady dealings.

Still, very illuminating, thanks :)

As with any decision that is made at the head judge's discretion, room for interpretation of what is “obvious” exists. Based on the experiences of the Knowledge Pool team, the identity of this card seems obvious to us. And, in fact, in the actual scenario that spawned this topic, the 23 did mean “23 Islands.” The player had simply been rushed to complete his list and overlooked it.

One of the reasons we ran this scenario is to highlight that head judges are granted latitude to understand a missing or incomplete card name in the context of the rest of the list and format being played. So, while it is possible to construct situations in which “23” means something other than “23 Islands,” we consider those situations to be inconsistent with our experiences in actual events.

If “23” does not seem obvious to you, you may issue a game loss here. The IPG gives you this authority. However, it is not the decision we would recommend.