Delay Clock on the Sabbath

[Meadmaker]

@DonM435

Suppose the rules were to state that you can have a clock-pushing assistant for a good reason, but that if you do, your opponent gets to select someone to fill the role. We’d still expect good sportsmanship and still punish blatant unfairness, but such a detail might temper the “fairness” argument.

Instead, the rules specify that if your opponent has a clock pushing assistant, or a writing assistant, you can have one as well, just in case you think he’s getting an advantage.

It accomplishes the same purpose.

[Meadmaker]

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Alright here’s the way it will go:

That’s not the way it went the one time I encountered the situation. In the one case I’m familiar with, the parents of the two children involved called the TD well in advance of the tournament and informed him that their kids wanted to play, but couldn’t use a Chess clock on Saturday. When the TD informed them that that would be no problem, they registered in advance and paid the man. (Handling money on the sabbath is taboo.)

The description of some pushy person shoving his way to the front of the line, angrily demanding that someone else do something for him, and imposing his demands is highly unrealistic.

[Meadmaker]

@eastside

@Meadmaker

I’m curious. Do you happen to remember if any of those tournaments offered a cash prize.
Did any of the players qualify for a cash prize?
Did any of them accept it?
[…]
And did any of them claim a win based on time forfeit?

To answer your questions, in order:

Two of the events offered a cash prize. The third was a one-day scholastic in the dead of winter that ran very late, due to an extended fire-alarm delay. (Amazingly, every single player/parent in attendance voted to have the full tournament, instead of truncating one round. So the last round actually started about the time that the awards ceremony would have - which was 5:30pm, after sunset.)

Of the two players in cash events, one did eventually qualify for a prize when the event finished the next day. That player accepted his prize.

None of the games ended in a time forfeit.

Since the prize was awarded after Shabbat, he might have been acceptable from a halachah point of view. I would have to ask a rabbi to be sure. (Actually, maybe two. That way I would get three opinions and could go with the majority.) Accepting it on Shabbat would be right out. Money-handling is taboo. However, my suspicion is that most rabbis would have told him he could not accept a monetary reward for a game played on the sabbath.

[timjust]

@Meadmaker

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Alright here’s the way it will go:

That’s not the way it went the one time I encountered the situation. In the one case I’m familiar with, the parents of the two children involved called the TD well in advance of the tournament and informed him that their kids wanted to play, but couldn’t use a Chess clock on Saturday. When the TD informed them that that would be no problem, they registered in advance and paid the man. (Handling money on the sabbath is taboo.)

The description of some pushy person shoving his way to the front of the line, angrily demanding that someone else do something for him, and imposing his demands is highly unrealistic.

Hypotheticals and rare situations–ahhh…the fodder for long, complicated, almost never useful rules changes.

[wilecoyote]

@Tim Just

@Meadmaker

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Alright here’s the way it will go:

That’s not the way it went the one time I encountered the situation. In the one case I’m familiar with, the parents of the two children involved called the TD well in advance of the tournament and informed him that their kids wanted to play, but couldn’t use a Chess clock on Saturday. When the TD informed them that that would be no problem, they registered in advance and paid the man. (Handling money on the sabbath is taboo.)

The description of some pushy person shoving his way to the front of the line, angrily demanding that someone else do something for him, and imposing his demands is highly unrealistic.

Hypotheticals and rare situations–ahhh…the fodder for long, complicated, almost never useful rules changes.

Especially when the correct answer is almost inevitably “read rule 1A, again, slowly and carefully.”

[eastside]

@adp

@eastside

If I could find any supporting documentation anywhere about the request from the Church of Bernie player, I would approve the accommodation.

Only problem is you’re not “anywhere” and it’s not any old time. You’re in a tiny makeshift office on the mezzanine level of the Sheraton Philadelphia, 10 minutes before entries close. The queue is 15 deep, every other person wants a tournament membership, and you are charged with finding someone to follow some kid around until 8:30 pm so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings.

You mean the Sheraton City Center where I’ve worked numerous times in the last eight years? Been there, done that, and doing it again in July. The correct procedure is (1) don’t be a jerk, (2) take care of the many before dealing with the request of the one, and (3) do a little research - or have some background knowledge - to support your position, whatever it ends up being. This is the correct procedure whenever someone comes up with a complicated request just before a round is scheduled to start, so it doesn’t just apply to religious accommodation. What’s so hard to grasp about this?