Scenario:

You are the Head Judge of a PPTQ in the last round of swiss. You announce to the players the following:

“If believe you are going to make the top 8, please submit your deck to the Judge station for a top 8 deck check.”

While going over Anna's deck and deck list, you notice a discrepancy; they registered a Sword of Light and Shadow as a sideboard card, but have a Sword of War and Peace in the sideboard of their actual deck.

What are the infractions, penalties, and additional remedies do you apply, if any?

Moved to the Competitive REL forum.

I see no reason not to issue a penalty here. Anna has been playing with an illegal deck all event, she should receive the appropriate penalty.

It's also the reason that I don't like doing “courtesy” T8 deck checks, and don't do them in events that I HJ.
If it's a courtesy, should we not be issuing penalties? “Oh, you messed up your list but I'm going to let you off with a warning despite the fact that I gave out game losses for the same thing in the Swiss rounds because it was a courtesy deck check”
If we are giving out penalties, why? These players aren't in a match, and haven't presented their decks to an opponent. By presenting your deck to your opponent, you are stating “this is my deck (and sideboard); its contents are legal for this format and matches decklist.” I've heard that presenting your deck to a Judge is the same a presenting to your opponent, but why are we having them sort the decklist ahead of time? No player is going to present a sorted pile of cards to their opponent.

The above are why I do a least one regular deck check during top 8. It shows the players (both currently playing and the ones that didn't make the cut) and spectators that I am still being vigilant about the legality of decks. It also means that I am treating deck problem the same throughout the event.

My understanding is that we don't go back in time and issue Deck List penalties. (though we're going to be having a chat about things)

And in this case, they haven't yet presented for the top-8 match. It seems they get to correct their deck to match the list, and there's no penalty.

If they can't find the card, or don't intend to use it, we don't penalize for missing sideboard cards, so still no penalty. (funny enough the way it's worded in the IPG doesn't allow for us to let him replace it with a basic land, since 14 cards is a legal sideboard.)

As for courtesy checks… we have precedent for doing them in other instances, so it doesn't really bother me conceptually for Top-8. One of the more obvious being checking to make sure basic lands are listed on sealed decklists as we pick them up. And if the Top-8 decklists are going to be reported somewhere (SCG, etc), it's nice to make sure they're all legal as reported.

Quoting old threads hasn't been going too well lately but here's hoping =p

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

This has been discussed/debated, extensively, both on the old Judge List and among the L4+ judges. As you might imagine, there are a lot of valid opinions, but here's the consensus or at least majority opinion:

If you must do courtesy deck checks, be sure the players know that they're presenting their deck to you for verification, and that D/DL Problems are penalized with a Game Loss, applied to the next game they'll play.

Note that courtesy deck checks should never result in a penalty for “failure to de-sideboard” - we verify the 75, in whatever order they're in. Ideally, the players have time to sort their decks for us - but that doesn't always happen, esp. for the last player(s) to make it in. Primarily, what I want to accomplish with these “courtesy” checks, is (a) make sure there aren't sleeve issues, (b) make sure there's no offensive altered art to show up on camera (heh), and © make sure their deck matches the list, as a courtesy to the other 7 players.

Instead of courtesy deck checks, I recommend having judges do a quick sideboard verification at the start of each Top 8 match, and mix in a few random deck checks during Top 8 - thus, providing the same service as we've provided during the Swiss rounds.

If coverage is a factor, then work with them in advance, so they can plan. If they want to cover match B, but you're going to swoop that match when the players present, coverage can adapt - cover a different match, perhaps, or line up an interview. And, it's a huge win for us if coverage mentions “there's a deck check in progress” - how many players believe they can't/won't be deck checked during Top 8?

http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/4042/?page=1#post-21342

I'm perfectly fine with issuing a DDLP game loss here for a mismatch
between the list and the deck. It's one thing if the player just
de-sideboarded incorrectly, it's another when the list has an actual error.
Especially for higher-profile events where the decklists are likely to be
published, it looks really bad on the judge staff if someone finds an error
AFTER the event is already over. Yes, our philosophy on decklist errors and
deck checks has changed recently, but we still need to ensure that there's
accuracy and fairness at the most important* stage of the event.
(*Most important as far as the competitive players are concerned anyway.)
This situation came up during the top 8 check for the Legacy Premier IQ at
SCG Syracuse a few weeks ago, and after consultation with the stage staff,
we issued the game loss.

Thanks for that quote, Toby - that's exactly what I wanted to say! ;)

Would it be possible before the last round starts (and the top 8 ID'ing occurs) to deck check all top 8/potential top 8 players, give out D/DLP warnings and then let the ID'ing begin?

I'm not sure why I'm asking since it seems like a work-around for something that we don't really need to be working around, but it does allow a way to to do ‘courtesy’ checks that give the required result (Game Loss) without affecting anything (unless the opponent decides that with a 1-0 headstart they may as well play for it rather than ID).

Secondly - just reading Toby's quote of Scott. Would then say it's good practice at the start of every top 8 match to check the sideboards of every player vs. the decklist to ensure no pre-sideboarding has occurred? I quite like this a as a quick, non-disruptive way of keeping on top of each players decklist in Game 1 (I assume we don't stop the matches while we check sideboards).

Players who ID into Top 8 don't present their decks to the opponents, complicating your “deck check before ID” idea.

We do not stop matches to check sideboards, and do so with as little disruption as possible. That allows the match - and coverage! - to progress without interruption (unless there is a problem).

Other judges have suggested staying at each match with copies of the decklists, and watching to see if any cards are played that aren't on the lists. If you have sufficient staff, that's a fine idea; it also encourages judges to actually watch Magic being played.

d:^D

It is interesting topic, in fact, Kenji Suzuki-san also asked same question to Japanese judges before starting first PPTQ season. There was no conclusion, someone do, others don't or partially do, i.e. sideboard check only etc.

We can do full deck check for every participants if we have infinite resources available. But it is not possible, so we do spot check as sampling in swiss round. (For me) T8 is good opportunity to do full check, so I usually do so as much as I can. I ask last round ID-es, or on-the-border player to submit de-sideboard and sorted mainboard with sideboard in deck case. Players kindly accept the request, I never had someone refused. It benefits both: player can confirm main/side is legal, judge can check it quicker while last round is running. Hence I am Ok to issue D/DL GL at that point. Then, all deck will be good shape when QF started - no disruption during T8.

It is what I learned from senior judges and I like the idea.

Since Kenji asked previously about that question about the courtesy deckcheck, and after clarifications and suggestion by Scott, I've taken the approach to check through their SB while they're playing their matches, and checking the list is legal. I would say that it is both effective and efficient.

The time saved by players sorting their decks and passing it to me for me to check is saved and passed back to the players, whereby players get to finish their matches early and we ended earlier and happier :D

During one of the many top 8 matches which I've used that method, there was only once a player really did failed to desideboard, and immediately called for me, after he drew that SB card.

Originally posted by Dennis Xiao:

players get to finish their matches early and we ended earlier and happier

Now that's a great result, and it's customer service for everyone still in the event!

d:^D

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

If they can't find the card, or don't intend to use it, we don't penalize for missing sideboard cards, so still no penalty.

Isn't the usual fix is to correct the list to match the deck?

IPG 3.5
“Remove any cards from the deck that are illegal for the format or violate the maximum number allowed, fix any
failures to desideboard, restore any missing cards if they (or identical replacements) can be located, then alter the decklist to reflect the remaining deck.”