Originally posted by Justin Rix:

Would it be worth looking into what was side boarded, and see if it fits with previous opponent? This would depend on if he called himself out before or after he knew he was being checked.

This seems like it could be an extraordinarily difficult task, and would also require that judges make subjective valuations about specific cards in any given matchup. And even if this determination were made, all it would determine is that he was not intentionally cheating (which, in this situation, he already seems to have been afforded that presumption since there is no evidence that he knew his opponent, or the deck his opponent was playing).

Originally posted by Justin Rix:

Would it be worth looking into what was side boarded, and see if it fits with previous opponent? This would depend on if he called himself out before or after he knew he was being checked.

At a PTQ I once had a deck check judge bring me a problem: one deck was Affinity and the other one was pre-sideboarded with artifact hate. When I interviewed the player and asked what he sideboarded against his last round opponent he listed a completely different set of cards. Alarm bells were ringing in my head.

Back to the current situation:
If you have the time you can check briefly with his previous round opponent and see if that player has an inkling what cards were brought in against him. In the situation we're discussing there's already a game loss for Tardiness so you have time for a quick check.

If a player calls attention to a DDLP after the judge has announced the deck check, then I'm certainly not downgrading. What he says may spark an investigation, but I would be very uncomfortable downgrading in that circumstance.

@David: This actually isn't that hard to do. We can quickly check with the scorekeeper to see who he played last round. We find where that player is this round. We go over to that player, pull him aside from the match and ask the following questions:
How much time was left in the round when you finished your match last round?
What're you playing?
Do you know what he might have boarded in against you?
(and possibly others depending upon on the answers to those questions)

And yes, we are going to need to make a few judgement calls. We are judges after all. Checking someone's story during an investigation is often a good idea.

Originally posted by Martha Lufkin:

At a PTQ I once had a deck check judge bring me a problem: one deck was Affinity and the other one was pre-sideboarded with artifact hate. When I interviewed the player and asked what he sideboarded against his last round opponent he listed a completely different set of cards. Alarm bells were ringing in my head.

I have actually had a situation like this at a local event before, where it turned into a disqualification. The new IPG makes this section significantly clearer, and easier to implement (thanks Toby). I do not want someone in my tournament who is performing these actions intentionally…

Originally posted by William Anderson:

If a player calls attention to a DDLP after the judge has announced the deck check, then I'm certainly not downgrading. What he says may spark an investigation, but I would be very uncomfortable downgrading in that circumstance.

@David: This actually isn't that hard to do. We can quickly check with the scorekeeper to see who he played last round. We find where that player is this round. We go over to that player, pull him aside from the match and ask the following questions:
How much time was left in the round when you finished your match last round?
What're you playing?
Do you know what he might have boarded in against you?
(and possibly others depending upon on the answers to those questions)

And yes, we are going to need to make a few judgement calls. We are judges after all. Checking someone's story during an investigation is often a good idea.

I suppose that my problem with making the card valuations is that there are obviously going to be clear cut situations (having 3 ancient grudge in against an affinity opponent), but there are numerous other situations where it won't be clear. And not only that, he may have sideboarded improperly! I guess a DQ is only going to be reserved for the most clear cut cases, with game losses for the others?
It is certainly possible to do an investigation as you said Will, but while it may be easy to do at a smaller event, are you more or less inclined to do it at a GP? If the player is very cooperative and nice, does that affect your decision to go find his previous opponent?

David, as William said, the point is not to see what archetype the previous opponent was playing and to see if the cards presideboarded made strategical sense against this opponent (you made a fair point against that), but to ask, for example, if he seen any sideboarded cards during their match, so we can compare what was sideboarded in during previous match and what is still in the deck at the beginning of the new one.

To answer you other questions in a global context (so not focusing on the specific scenario discussed in this thread):

- You don't need a clear cut to disqualify a player. You “only” need to have the feeling, based on your investigation and the informations you gathered, that the player commited something illegal to gain an advantage and knew it was illegal. Because it's all about intents and knowledge, there are lot of situations in which having a clear cut is not possible, but in which a HJ still think that USC- Cheating was the most appropriate infraction. That's one of the areas in which you have to use your judgement, and in which only you can tell if it was the right call or not because you were the one here, witnessing and directing the whole investigation, collecting all informations, and seeing how everybody involved behave.

- Everything, due to the scale, is more complex during a GP. That's why we have dedicated teams to take care of every task, and one of the deck check teams should be able to conduct the needed verifications (finding previous opponent and asking him the relevant questions, then reporting those datas to the HJ conduction the investigation) in a timely fashion.

- Player's behavior is something you usualy take into account during investigation, because everything he says or does could help you to make your mind on what happened and why. However, it's a good idea to add factual elements to your investigation process and not only rely on players' behavior, and to double check if the story we just heard matches the fact.

Originally posted by William Anderson:

If a player calls attention to a DDLP after the judge has announced the deck check, then I'm certainly not downgrading. What he says may spark an investigation, but I would be very uncomfortable downgrading in that circumstance.

The way I read the scenario this isn't as much after the announced deckcheck but more a case of ‘checking sideboard, discover error, at same moment DC judge comes in.’
I would downgrade in this situation, because he was in a hurry and he was checking already before we stept in.
I don't take the prior GL into account, but i do take the situation of being rushed and that being the cause of the error into account.