It seems to be popular consensus that the appropriate penalty for a player’s phone going off is first a time penalty then if it happens again, the player loses by forfeit.
My question is: If a player is losing a game, can he purposefully get himself Cell Phone forfeited to avoid losing the rating points? This would be especially attractive in the last round of a tournament. Can that player’s opponent REFUSE to allow his opponent to be forfeited?
As I understand it, a loss because a cell phone went off is rated as long as each player made at least one move in the game. It’s similar to a player losing because of a time forfeit.
Which would then make the rule a sandbagger’s paradise - said sandbagger wouldn’t have to disguise that he or she is is winning the game, just let the phone ring twice. (At least the first such game.)
Perhaps this is the reason that the recommended penalties of 20N1 are stated to be, “guidelines.” Or maybe the guideline language is so that the director may still apply 1C2B, recognizing there may be times where the specified guidelines may be inappropriate?
That is a lost game and is rated. Just like it would be if the player were forfeited for other misbehavior in the middle of a game.
A forfeit that is not rated is when a player never shows up. If the game starts then it is rated.
IF the phone rings in a 2nd game then I am removing that player from the tournament.
This happened Saturday night to my son. Before his opponent showed up the TD came over and deducted 10 minutes from the clock because he said the guy’s phone went off after the last round so he was being penalized in the next game after the phone rang. So my son was aware of the fact that one more ring would be a forfeit, as “forfeit” is the word the TD’s always use prior to each round when reminding everyone to turn off their ringers.
So when the opponent’s phone rang during their game, which was even at the time, he didn’t call the guy on it because he didn’t want to miss the chance to pick up rating points (plus he didn’t want to stir up trouble as a kid playing an adult). I wondered afterwards whether it would or would not affect ratings, just as this thread began by asking. I’d suggest the TD’s find another word besides forfeit , such as “lose” to make the implications clearer to all players.
Nothing stops the determined sandbagger except rating floors and the CCA list.
Throw in the CCA 12-month rule, and you have a rather large financial deterrent to sandbagging.
TDs do not always use the word “forfeit”. When I make announcements, I always use “loss of game” when announcing the cell phone rule. Besides, if a game is lost due to a cell phone violation, it would be rated anyway.
Your son should immediately ask a TD if he is even mildly ambiguous about any situation at a tournament. And he certainly should worry more about protecting his own rights than stirring up trouble for adults who don’t follow the rules.
I was the TD that deducted the 10 minutes. The event occurred in round 5 on Sunday night. I don’t know which TD used the word “forfeit”. Perhaps that director meant it in the same way that it is used for a time forfeit which also costs rating points. I always say “lose” because I know that rating points are also lost.
Your son came to me minutes after he had already lost the game on the board on your suggestion and said “I think my opponent’s cell phone went off during the game”. When I had seen the position shortly before it ended, your son was in the process of getting mated by a queen and knight. I must have been out of the room preparing for the blitz tournament at the time it rang or I would have imposed the penalty. Including myself there were 4 floor directors so he could have come to any one of us to complain when it happened. My response to your son was “You waited until after you lost. It’s too late to do anything now”.
Unfortunately there is a misconception among some players that one can wait to see how their game is going and save the complaint for later if they don’t like the result. The fact is no player is permitted 2 opportunities to win the same game.
As for stirring up trouble, I would not have had any problem imposing the penalty as long as I had confirmation of the violation either by witnessing it myself, witnessed by a third party, or an admission by the player. If anyone is stirring up trouble in this situation it is the player who allowed this distraction to occur again after being warned and penalized.
Hey this is great. Now you have a chance to educate your son on the rules and the terminology! So many players know so little about the rules - this is a first class chance to have him be interested enough to learn.
Well put. There wasn’t an explicit attempt to get a second chance to win the same game, though for all practical purposes that’s what it turned out to be. It’s unfortunate that we (all of us players collectively) don’t always bring things up in a timely enough fashion when there’s confusion over a point.