I heard out of GP Oakland that someone was playing a 64 card main deck due to a misregistration; when issued a GL for presenting 60, they were informed they would have to play with the four additional cards.

While I can think of some potential reasons not to simply edit the decklist down to 60, I'm curious about the reasoning behind this call.

Caveat emptor: I'm hearing about this via what is essentially third-hand information. I could have bad data, but this is still a useful topic - when would we consider requiring the deck to match the list after an error, instead of vice versa (outside of obvious cases like missing/illegal cards)?

I think it depends on how it is detected. If detected during a deck check,
we generally fix the list to match the deck. If detected by the player
coming up to us between rounds and asking to see the list, we don't have a
deck to compare it to, so we simply show them the list and remind them that
they must play the registered list. Of course, if they then decide to play
just 60, they are Cheating.

Yes, I do see the “bug” here where a player with a legitimate misreg is
treated differently if the issue is detected by a judge or by the player.
However, offering players a “free” decklist change at the cost of a game
loss is not a deal we want to offer, so if a player comes to me and asks to
see the list, I'm not changing the list unless it is itself illegal.

No comment on the specific ruling you heard about from Oakland.
On Jan 11, 2016 9:00 AM, “Nathaniel Lawrence” <

As the HJ for Oakland, I can tell you I'm not aware of any specific
interaction our deck checks teams had with Ben Rubin involving his
decklist. I've seen the comments about a 64 card list on social media and
I've asked the leads of those teams whether they remember anything along
these lines. If I learn anything more, I'll share it as appropriate.

Sean

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Of course, if they then decide to play
just 60, they are Cheating.

I assume if a player honestly tells you “I can't play with my list, since I lack those 4 extra cards and don't want or can't buy them”, you fix the list to match their deck, and give appropriate TE-D/DLP and GL… ;)

It's only Cheating if they say “OK, OK, I'll play those 64” and then play 60, get caught, and pass the usual checks for Cheating ;)

I conferred with my deck checks team leads for both days. None of the three
leads remembered any interaction with Ben Rubin. As far as I know, his deck
was not among those randomly selected to be checked in the course of either
day.

Corbin Hosler, part of the event coverage team for WotC, has stated on
Reddit that he asked Ben about his unusual decklist and that Ben indicated
he was intentionally playing 64 cards.

Thanks for checking! Sorry for the misinformation :)

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/64-cards/

Seems like Ben Rubin was intentionally playing 64. Funny.
I have a similar story from Italian Nationals long, long ago:

top8.
Player A has something like three cards remaining in his deck, so he casts his fourth Howling Mine and passes its turn.
Player B untaps, draws five, and still has remaining cards in his deck.

A: “What the heck? How many cards do you play?”
B: “Don't know … 65, 66…”