Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week we have another Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday to join in.

Amy has sat down to play her round 1 match at a Sealed PPTQ against Neve and the round has just begun. Amy calls for a judge because she discovered that she has an extra card in her deck. She knows she has exactly 40 sleeves, but while sleeving, she ended up with an extra card. Amy isn't sure what the extra card is, so you quickly find her decklist and verify that she registered 41 cards in her main deck. Amy doesn't have any extra sleeves, and its now 4 minutes into the round. What do you do to get Amy and Neve playing, and what (if any) infractions and penalties apply?

What an interesting scenario… Allright, let dive in.

So we have a case of the deck (41 cards) and the decklist (41 cards) being even. So TE-Deck/Decklist Error is excluded. Now, do we have a case of TE-Marked Cards?

The answer lies in when the infraction was discovered. If it was discovered before the presenting period, then no. At this point instruct Amy that she has 10 minutes to find either of a)a matching sleeve or b) resleeve her entire deck. At this point, no penalties apply. If she runs out of the 10 minutes, then we have a tardiness penalty which results in a Match loss.

If the error was discovered during the presenting period, apply the same as above except give Amy a warning for TE-Marked cards.

This is a decklist problem - the deck doesn't match what the player intended to play. It's round 1 and no game actions have been taken yet, I'm pretty comfortable giving Amy a game-loss and letting her remove a card from her main-deck (ideally quickly!) and fixing her deck as appropriate.

I feel like I may allow her to continue with the 41 card deck and provide her 10 minutes to find a replacement sleeve… Whilst she intended to play a 40 card deck, it's difficult to say what that 40 card deck actually is - maybe the cards aren't wrong, it's her understanding of how many there are. In which case, all she really did was miscount her deck as she did intend to play all of these cards.

This does give her a choice that basically involves ‘buying’ her way out of a game loss; she can go buy new sleeves and avoid a game loss. That feels bad, but I think it is correct.

All-in-all, I'm probably asking her if she wants to take a card out of her deck or if she wants to go and buy new sleeves; that basically answers the question of “What did you intend to play?” and I'll handle the answer as appropriate (Either 10 minutes to get new sleeves or a GL for Decklist problem and fix the list).

If the 41 cards present match the 41 cards registered, this can't be a decklist problem. If, during this review period, she believes it should have been 40 cards, then this would become a decklist problem since the decklist would need to be updated down to 40 cards.

I'm very much on board with Maxine's line of thinking. The problem ultimately becomes, when does TE: Marked Cards kick in, and would we upgrade here (an un-sleeved card is marked in such a way that it's easily identifiable where it could be in a sleeved deck could provide an advantage).

Since our investigation indicates that Amy is unsure of what the card is, I don't think there's enough to upgrade here.

I'm with Sophie on this. Decklist problem includes situations where the decklist doesn't match what the player intended to play. Either give Amy 10 minutes to find sleeves for her 41 card deck, or else let her take a game loss and remove whichever card she didn't intend to play from her list.

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

This is a decklist problem - the deck doesn't match what the player intended to play.

I don't think there's a Decklist Problem, she has 41 cards in the deck and decklisted 41 cards, so her deck/decklist are legal.
Maybe she miscounted while constructing the deck and listing it, but that's a thing no judge can intervene in.

I'm with Maxime Emond's resolution: Nothing if detected before presenting the decks / Warning for TE-Marked Cards if detected after presenting the decks. Solution +10 mins to find an extra sleeve that matches the ones she's using or a set of 41 new sleeves or play with the deck unsleeved for this round (or until she finds 41 matching sleeves).

Either way Amy's going to have a targeted Deckcheck just to make sure her Deck-Decklist matches.


EDIT: Forgot to fill the Quote box :rolleyes:

Edited Arnau Rosas (Dec. 12, 2017 10:10:48 PM)

Originally posted by Arnau Rosas:

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

This is a decklist problem - the deck doesn't match what the player intended to play.

I don't think there's a Decklist Problem, she has 41 cards in the deck and decklisted 41 cards, so her deck/decklist are legal.
Maybe she miscounted while constructing the deck and listing it, but that's a thing no judge can intervene in.

I'm with Maxime Emond's resolution: Nothing if detected before presenting the decks / Warning for TE-Marked Cards if detected after presenting the decks. Solution +10 mins to find an extra sleeve that matches the ones she's using or a set of 41 new sleeves or play with the deck unsleeved for this round (or until she finds 41 matching sleeves).

Either way Amy's going to have a targeted Deckcheck just to make sure her Deck-Decklist matches.


EDIT: Forgot to fill the Quote box :rolleyes:

Originally posted by IPG:

3.4. Tournament Error — Decklist Problem Game Loss
Definition
The decklist is illegal, doesn’t match what the player intended to play, or needs to be modified due to card
loss over the course of the tournament.

Whilst the decklist is perfectly legal, decklist problem covers more that just situations where the decklist is not legal. The decklist doesn't match what the player intended to play is quite neatly a decklist problem.

Hum, there have been interesting discussions since I last checked the thread. And I see Sophie's point of view. It is true that Decklist problem encompass the statement of “what a player did not intend to play”. I have a really big instinct “feel bad” moment when I delve (lol) down in my thoughts.

Here's why. So Amy has a 41 cards deck, does not know which card is the extra. So we fetch the decklist and notice she registered a 41 card deck. At this very point there is no infractions.

Also of use is this "Penalties for decklist errors discovered during a deckcheck are issued immediately. Other decklist penalties are issued at the start of the next round to minimize the disruption to the match currently being played and provide consistency in case some players have finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered." (Emphasis Added)

We are not currently doing a deckcheck. I understand that the philosophy behind this is to minimize disruption and that we could reliable apply the game loss to the 1st round with almost no disruption as no one in this match has started playing yet. But is it policy supported?

Furthermore, asking her intent deck right there might cause for some biased answer. I think the best solution I can come up with would be a middle ground between the two solution proposed in this thread. Propose to her the option of finding replacement sleeves. Once her round 1 match is over, go back to her and ask her the intent of her deck. Did she mean to play the 41 cards. If not, she can then rectify the list there (with you obviously) and have a Game Loss applied to G1 of Round 2. This way you minimize disruption to the currently going match and offer her the option to modify her decklist for the rest of the tournament, so she is not bound to her administrative/clerical error while registering.

Edit : And you are also in line with the policy cited above.

I do appreciate both L2's input on this subject, this has been a learning experience!

Edited Maxime Emond (Dec. 13, 2017 12:37:58 AM)

Amy Hasn't presented her deck so she didn't state it as being a correct deck. Now she discovers this problem before she starts playing.
My point being, Tardiness has a clause that a player can request permission to perform legitimate tasks (such as bathroom breaks and replacing cards). Wouldn't buying a new sleeve fall under a legitimate task? That player would get up to 10 minutes to buy a sleeve and play on with the 41 cards.

Originally posted by Maxime Emond:

Furthermore, asking her intent deck right there might cause for some biased answer. I think the best solution I can come up with would be a middle ground between the two solution proposed in this thread. Propose to her the option of finding replacement sleeves. Once her round 1 match is over, go back to her and ask her the intent of her deck. Did she mean to play the 41 cards. If not, she can then rectify the list there (with you obviously) and have a Game Loss applied to G1 of Round 2. This way you minimize disruption to the currently going match and offer her the option to modify her decklist for the rest of the tournament, so she is not bound to her administrative/clerical error while registering.

I would not wait to pursue the DLP path until after the match is over. Since DLP is a GL, the incentive to try and avoid the penalty is there regardless of when you ask about her intention. The more important question here is the question of tournament logistics.

Think of it this way: we're looking at about a 15-minute extension on this match, which is pretty disruptive to the tournament overall. You have the opportunity to cut this down to a 6 minute extension by having Amy quickly look through her deck and select the excess card that she doesn't want to play maindeck, assessing DLP if Amy agrees that she intended to play only 40 cards. If she wants all 41 cards, then she has 10 minutes to find sleeves for them all, but she's now locked into that 41-card maindeck.

Edited Andrew Keeler (Dec. 13, 2017 01:10:36 AM)

Originally posted by Rory Tans:

Amy Hasn't presented her deck so she didn't state it as being a correct deck. Now she discovers this problem before she starts playing. My point being, Tardiness has a clause that a player can request permission to perform legitimate tasks (such as bathroom breaks and replacing cards). Wouldn't buying a new sleeve fall under a legitimate task? That player would get up to 10 minutes to buy a sleeve and play on with the 41 cards.

Yes, but the whole situation resolves around the fact that Amy is claiming that she has an extra card, sudo-implying that she meant to play a 40 card deck, but has mistakenly registered a 41 card deck. This falls under DLP (thank Sophie for the refresh!)

So the question here is not really what is the infraction, it's more a question of how to proceed and when to proceed to verify the intention of Amy, and asses the situation correctly.

And Andrew…. your arguments are sound. But I'm still not sure if this is policy supported, because of “Penalties for decklist errors discovered during a deckcheck are issued immediately. Other decklist penalties are issued at the start of the next round to minimize the disruption to the match currently being played and provide consistency in case some players have finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered.”

We can hardly say we are in a deckcheck, so policy guides us to apply the GL to the G1 of R2. I understand full well that a deviation here could be in order, but I always try to err on the side of avoiding deviation until I get more field experience.

Maxime Emond, we have a test for her intention. The deck she is playing. That is, this is why if the decklist has a problem it reads 2 Jace in standard …where we currently have 2 “Jace” in standard thanks to the Planeswalker Decks… we look to see what she's actually playing. Change the decklist and give a game loss (the gl is BECAUSE we don't think she's cheating…and to discourage the behavior which could one day lead to planned or opportunistic cheating.

In this case, there is some “ambiguity”. We have the card in her deck and it is “marked” (unsleaved). She has called us. At this point, I can see why good judges might disagree on what the “deck is” that is being played. EVen she is unsure. So she calls for the deck list. We now see it has 41 cards. So, where does this leave us?

I'd say it leaves us in investigation. I'd look to see if all the decklist marks seem to be made by the same person/writing implement, etc. Upon seeing that. I'd get confirmation, “This is the decklist you submitted?” Great, so let's get your entire deck sleeved or unsleeved quickly. You said you brought excatly 40 sleeves, do you have extras in a car, a deck box, etc… If not, do you know what sleeves these are? Perhaps we can buy a pack and if the condition and print quality is the same we can shortcut this and sleeve only the one card. I'll help you either way, as the round is just starting, at least until there's a judge call I need to take. Would you prefer to unsleeve right now and sleeve up after your game when there's ample time? Or do you want to take no more than 10 minutes and do it right now?

I would issue “no infraction” because I see no infraction. If a judge really wanted to give marked cards… <shrugs> What can I say… I guess I'm a push over. :) (I also don't think it's fully supported in policy)

What do you think?

Mark

Originally posted by Maxime Emond:

And Andrew…. your arguments are sound. But I'm still not sure if this is policy supported, because of “Penalties for decklist errors discovered during a deckcheck are issued immediately. Other decklist penalties are issued at the start of the next round to minimize the disruption to the match currently being played and provide consistency in case some players have finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered.”

It's just fine to assess the GL penalty at the beginning of round 2, but the deck/list should still be fixed now at the beginning of round 1, since now is when we have the problem, and this problem is preventing play from beginning.

Mark Mason, Maybe I'm misunderstanding, so please do tell if I am.

From what I'm getting, you would have her play with her 41 Card mainboard and deny her the possibility to change her decklist (query : For the whole tournament?). I don't want to drift in an endless “if” scenarios, but if this happened in R4, I'd agree with you. But this is R1, So maybe she just miscounted the cards when building. registered a 41 card deck when she wanted to play 40. In that case… the Decklist does not represent what she intended to play.
I guess the over-arching (generalized) question becomes : Do we want to bind the players to Decklist mistakes in a Sealed tournament? Does the “deck does not match what the player intended to play” statement in the IPG is applicable to honest mistakes makes during registration of the deck.

Maxime, the situation regardless won't be as you've described.

Here's why. After game 1 of each round the player may sideboard. They can sideboard in any way they wish as long as they play at least 40 cards. They can play 40 cards each of the second (and any third) game in every round. It's just not as punative as you're suggesting.

I would NOT want to “give the player an option” to change the sheet“ even for the single game loss, that feels as if it might give an advantage of giving a player more ”build time" for example, they may have been on the fence about two cards. And, put them both down, then got online and looked up the grade of each card in sealed or phoned a pro friend or asked others in the store about the cards…in order to take a single g/l (or maybe nothing if judge is confused) in order to have essentially extended build time and gotten outside assistance.

Is this at all helpful?

Warmly,

Mark