Easy one, TE–D/DLP, game loss. No downgrade because A) they didn't catch it during pregame, it's a judge doing the deck check, and B) even if you want to argue the “no infraction” downgrade, which doesn't apply since it specifies only decklist errors, there are two cards it could conceivably be (liliana and jace) so I don't think there's ANY case you could make for anything other than a game loss.

The IPG has this to say about determining if an incomplete card name is ambiguous or not:

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.

Yes, we're 100% sure what the cards on her decklist are, but the problem here is we're not 100% sure what the cards in her deck are. And I feel like the same philosophy should apply here - if I need to check the rest of the deck to figure out what card this is, then the identity of the card isn't unambiguous. It doesn't matter if Elspeth is playing mono-blue or 5-color control - the rest of her deck can't and doesn't inform my decision here.

D/DLP for Elspeth, GL, no downgrade.

Edited Benjamin Harris (Sept. 25, 2015 11:03:21 AM)

Okay, apparently we have an agreement on the infraction “TE - DDLP”, also, there's seems to be an agreement on the penalty, default for those scenarios “Game Loss”, but what about the fixing?

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

I also like to expand my thinking in situations like this. What if the player got Thoughtseized and the opponent saw the unmarked checklist card. She calls for a judge, then what? Do we confirm that there are only Jace's in the box and everything is hunky dory, thus giving away some information about the content of the player's deck (no other PWs)?

This is great logic. An initial thought is to assume that something like this is “obviously a Jace” - but we need to consider that game actions revealing a blank checklist card create a cloud of difficulty for the players.

Additionally, while I've seen some calls for a Downgrade since no game actions have been taken, it's important to note that the player did not discover the issue with their deck - the judge performing a deck check did.

TE - DDLP - GL and education on how this could be a problem. Fix the deck by having the player check the appropriate planeswalker on their checklist cards.

Edited Tom Davis (Sept. 25, 2015 11:19:05 AM)

Before reading: To both a judge viewing the decklist and the player who knows the contents of the deck, there is no issue as the checklist cards are obviously intended to be representative of Jace. However, it was mentioned that the player is playing a Blue and Black deck with lands supporting both colors. Any opponent playing against this player has no way to verify whether the Checklist card is designated to be Jace or Liliana - either one can legally be played in this deck, and there's no way for either player to verify the legality of the checklist card being a legal proxy for either Jace or Liliana without knowing the entirety of the deck.

With that frame of thought in mind, I would therefore feel that the card is not a legal Checklist card as per the MTR:
MTR 3.5 Checklist Cards: “Each individual checklist card used must have one (and only one) of the items checked.”

If the checklist card is not legal, therefore there is no checklist card in the main deck and the card would be an illegal card. I would rule D/DLP and issue a penalty of a Game Loss, and have the player correct the problem before returning to the match on game 2, with no option for either player to sideboard and Elspeth having the option to play or draw.

After reading: seems to be the concensus, thanks to Brian Rapp for pointing out 711.3a

Originally posted by Patrick Vorbroker:

Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool everyone! This week we have another Gold Scenario for you, meaning all judges are welcome to participate from the get-go

The blog post for this scenario can be found here.

At the beginning of round three at a standard Grand Prix Trial, you deck check table 5. Elspeth's decklist says “4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy”, along with a variety of other blue and black spells and lands. Her deck, however, contains 56 cards and 4 unmarked Magic Origins Checklist Cards. Her box also contains 4 Jace, Vryn's Prodigy in clear sleeves. There are no other cards which can be represented by a checklist card on Elspeth's decklist or in her deck. What do you do?

If a checklist is not marked it is not a valid magic card, and so Elspeth has presented an illegal deck. I would give her a DDLP (GL), and ask her to fill in the checklist cards. I would remind them that there is no sideboarding in game two, but Elspeth gets to choose whether she plays or draws.

Originally posted by Marcos Sanchez:

Any opponent playing against this player has no way to verify whether the Checklist card is designated to be Jace or Liliana - either one can legally be played in this deck, and there's no way for either player to verify the legality of the checklist card being a legal proxy for either Jace or Liliana without knowing the entirety of the deck.

This is an extremely well articulated and important point - thanks for sharing it! I had considered that the checklist was unambiguously Jace given the decklist, and the impracticality of gaining advantage by pulling Lilianas from elsewhere. However, the fact that this could occur midgame with no ability to verify Jace vs Liliana other than consulting a decklist means that the card cannot be considered unambiguous.
While the ambiguity is referenced with regards to the decklist, it is a philosophy we could apply to this situation.

If a player is playing with a proxy they didn't check with the Head Judge, it could easily be considered as “not a Magic card” - do we give a GL here, or just ask them to replace it? Is replacement without infraction supported by the idea that a non-legal proxy does not count as a valid card?

Before reading other answers:

This certainly is a tricky one. Either Elspeth has committed TE - D/DLP, or Elspeth has committed no infraction.

MTR 3.5 states “Each individual checklist card used must have one (and only one) of the items checked.”, which is not the case here. However, there's not a generic “broke a tournament rule” infraction, and there's no infraction that directly references MTR 3.5.

When a scenario falls between the cracks, it helps to back up and read the philosophy a bit. The IPG points out “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.”. While this refers to errors in the list, I think the same philosophy applies to an unfilled checklist card. As far as the opponent is concerned, this piece of cardboard could realistically be argued to represent either Jace, Vryn's Prodigy or Liliana, Heretical Healer - or any other flip card, for that matter. Or perhaps it represents none of them. I would argue that an incorrectly filled checklist card is not a legal Magic card, so, Elspeth has presented a deck with 56 legal cards, and 4 irrelevant pieced of cardboard.

Elspeth has committed TE - D/DLP, and will receive a game loss for this match. To fix, we remove the illegal cards (the unmarked checklists), restore the missing listed cards (fill the checklists, and add them back), and alter the decklist to match the remaining deck (leave it as is). Players will begin their match on game 2, and Elspeth may choose to play first or second. As no game actions were taken, players may not sideboard before game 2. Give a time extension as necessary.

—

After reading other responses:

Seems to be pretty much the consensus, with only slightly different paths of reasoning to get there.

Originally posted by Jonathan Burgess:

Sean, I would argue that this falls under clerical error as they had the card listed on their decklist, had the card in their deckbox with the exact amount of checklist cards and no other cards in their deck/deckbox that the checklist card could apply to, the were merely not marked which might have been as simple as a friend suggested they do this right before the tournament to preserve their cards by not taking them out of the sleeves repeatedly, a common occurrence.

On the same note I also believe it would be difficult to gain an advantage in the tournament from the situation.

OK, that's fair. I could be persuaded then by Chuck Pierce's argument: TR: D/DL, no infraction. It's definitely not a warning, as that would be down the downgrade path, which this scenario does not meet. But it might be down the ‘judge’s discretion to not apply' path you mention, which would argue for no infraction.

This is Tournament Error – Deck/Decklist Problem for Miss Tirel and therefore a game loss. Instruct her to mark her checklist cards and play Game 2 without sideboards.

Hey Everyone!

I had a wonderful discussion about this sort of thing over the weekend as my local L3 was beating me to death with an Ullamog, the Ceaseless Hunger.

First off, I just want to say, that there is always the suspect of cheating, which is where my first inclination would be if I found myself in this case. Assuming I did believe no cheating was happening…

In the given scenario I would tell the player they must mark those cards to indicate they represent Jace, and then move on.

Now lets assume I get called over because Adam just thoughtseized Nathan and saw an unchecked card. His deck box has 4 unsleeved Jace, Vryn's Prodigy, and no other double-faced cards. Nathan's decklist shows 4x Jace, and no other double-faced card. Okay. I take away his deck, mark all the double faced cards myself, maintain deck order, apply time extension and they continue.

Now, in scenarios 1 and 2, I do feel like something should be noted about the player since this can cause serious issues. I would move to give a D/DLP and issue a Warning, since it seems like an innocent mistake, but could easily become cheating. I am going the same route as DEC.

While reading over the soon-to-be BFZ changes I read this which feels to me to have the same philosophy…
"The Head Judge now has the option to ignore incorrect basic lands on a limited decklist where the intent is obvious. This pretty much exclusively applies to something like a player marking “8 swamps, 9 islands” in a U/W deck. You now have the ability to say “well, that should obviously be 8 plains” and let it go. If there’s any chance of ambiguity (say 8 swamps, 9 islands, 1 plains in a UWb deck), you should apply the penalty as normal."

Edited Jarrett Boutilier (Sept. 28, 2015 07:44:52 PM)

Hi all

First of all, i would try to find the 2 opponents whom this player against in the first 2 rounds. To check if this players have played any checklist/double-faced cards, and what are they?

then，

according to , and the decklist, and according to the “fact” - the 4 jace laid in the deckbox, and the investigation of the 2 opponents.

i believed this means the players want to have the jace in the deck.


And
said, we MUST mark the checklist if we want to use it.

So, i believed this is where the problem is.

Therefore, i believed this is GRV - he did not mark the checklist, becoz he failed to do . This would be a WARNING. and to fix it, i would have that players mark the checklists.

———————————————————————————————————————-

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

This certainly is a tricky one. Either Elspeth has committed TE - D/DLP, or Elspeth has committed no infraction.

MTR 3.5 states “Each individual checklist card used must have one (and only one) of the items checked.”, which is not the case here. However, there's not a generic “broke a tournament rule” infraction, and there's no infraction that directly references MTR 3.5.

Almost. While you are correct that there is no infraction that refers directly to MTR 3.5, there is a remedy specified for players who have failed to follow proper tournament rules, but whose error does not fall under any specific IPG infraction. Specifically:

If a player violates the MTR in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions below, the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the player, but not issue a penalty. Continued disregard of these rules may require further investigation.

Really our options are TE-D/DLP with game loss or “generic TE” with a request to mark the checklist cards appropriately. I definitely see this one as a grey area for me, as I can see arguments for either infraction and remedy.

Note: I use the language of ‘generic TE’ to distinguish these cases of MTR violations from cases where the player has done nothing wrong.

I would give D/DLP GL for this one. If this were caught during round 1, I may have considered the possibility of a downgrade. However, by round 3, the player has already had two rounds and many opportunities to discover and correct this mistake. There is the slim possibility that round 3 was the first time they had seen their own blank checklist card for that day, but I think it is safe to discount this possibility unless the player explicitly mentions this in response to the above explanation.

Edited Alexandra Yang (Sept. 29, 2015 12:36:39 AM)

TE–D/DLP with a game loss, check the checklist cards and move on.

This isn't a Deck error the player caught, it was caught by a judge so the downgrade doesn't apply:

Originally posted by IPG:

If a player, before taking any game actions, discovers a deck (not decklist) problem and calls a judge at that point, the Head Judge may issue a Warning, fix the deck, and, if the player has drawn their opening hand, instruct the player to mulligan. The player may continue to take further mulligans if he or she desires.

There is a line that allows us to not apply this penalty at all, but this applies to the decklist not the deck which is where the problem is:

Originally posted by IPG:

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

In terms of the fix, we remove the checklists (they're illegal unchecked), check them and then replace the ‘missing’ Jace cards in the deck (checked checklist cards are fine here):

Originally posted by IPG:

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

Edited Marc Shotter (Sept. 29, 2015 05:46:03 AM)