I was involved in a 4 round swiss with 1 game a week and after moving got up to get a drink of water and step outside for a second. I found myself locked outside in the cold for 45 minutes, banging on a door. Finally someone noticed and let me in. I had about five minutes on my clock, and reading my opponent, my only choice was to play, and I quickly blundered a piece and resigned.
Is it correct that I could have stopped the clock and summoned the TD to explain the unfairness of the situation. If the TD, who also happened to be my opponent, disagreed, I could mention that I wanted to appeal his ruling, before resuming the game. And then, if three TDs weren’t available to make a ruling, send a letter to the ethics committee for their input?
You certainly have the right to appeal any ruling by the TD, either to an appeals committee or a special referee. The latter is recommended. If you don’t get satisfaction, you are free to appeal that decision to USCF, probably rules in this case (why ethics?) and if still not satisfied, you can appeal to the delegates. I’d have to think that any appeal in this case would have very little chance of success.
This is one of those cases where fairness and the rules are not necessarily going to be the same.
I have to agree with earlier posters that with respect to the rules, you won’t win.
There’s one avenue that could leave an opening. Do the rules allow for the possibility of “acts of God” interrupting a game. An inadvertently locked door would be approximately the same as a power interruption or some other event that makes it impossible for the game to continue. The only difference is that only one player is affected. It is a reasonable assumption that reentry to the building will still be possible if one steps out. If there is any provision (I can’t think of one) for allowing continuation with restoration of lost time due to such a circumstance, I would think it would be available.
You can - and, in fact, should - stop the clock when retrieving a TD for a dispute.
You always have the right of appeal of a TD’s decision, either to an appeals committee (if available) or a special referee (which is probably what you would be doing in this case).
Your opponent (who happened to be the TD as well) was not the cause of your delay. He would be completely correct to rule against you if you asked him to give you time back. You must also consider that your opponent has directing duties, and probably cannot afford to have his game run late for artificial reasons.
If you wanted to appeal further, the TD can call a special referee, as mentioned earlier. The special referees are a small group highly experienced TDs, who have run some of the largest and most important tournaments in the country. I’m not a special referee, but I don’t see you getting relief there either, because there’s no grounds for it in the rules.
You could, if you desired, appeal to the Ethics Committee. You must submit a refundable deposit along with an ethics complaint. If the complaint is found to be frivolous, the deposit is not refunded. I am not on the Ethics Committee, but my (strong) guess is that a complaint to them about this situation would cost you the deposit.
No opponent is obligated to do that. In fact, the only time most opponents will be concerned about a long absence from the board is if there is possible cheating suspected. Even then, a TD is not likely to conduct a massive manhunt - rather, he’ll take note of the player, perhaps inquire as to the reasons for his extended absence, and remind him that he’s not allowed to do that in the future.
When a TD is playing in an event (and usually, the only reason a TD plays is to make sure no one has to take a bye), that TD is probably the only director, and as such really needs to stay in the playing room unless absolutely necessary.
In general, though, a playing TD should be willing to bend over backwards to be fair to his opponent, even if he has to be a little unfair to himself in the process.
But in this particular example, tournament scheduling considerations may have precluded the possibility of such an approach.
Looks like there was plenty of time since player was locked out 45 minutes with 5 minutes left on his clock and his TD opponent also had probably that same amount of time on his clock. Isn’t there some rule about being away from the board more than 15 minutes?
First of all, welcome to the Forums! And despite the sudden and frank opinions you’re getting, you’re in what I hope is the right place to ask just such a question.
I agree generally with the concurrence of the more experienced directors above… There is no provision in the rules for granting you relief that I know about. That said, I wonder what the circumstances were that required the venue (or where the player went outside) to be locked? And it would be good future advise that the TD should, in announcements, inform players that if they leave [the hall, building floor, building] they should expect to be locked out. Other more substantial local, state, or federal regulations than the USCF rulebook might control such things and whether they’re allowed.
In general, such accommodation extends to things like letting his own clock run if he’s called away to settle a dispute, etc.
Most anyone who’s directed club events has at some point played in an event they’re running. I generally advise directors not to do this unless necessary, and have dropped out of - or registered for - local events specifically so the TD wouldn’t feel obligated to play.
Indeed, and that’s a case where the rules of Chess might not cover all aspects of the situation.
There was a guy locked out of a building for 45 minutes banging on a door, and we are confining ourselves to what the 5th edition rulebook has to say about the situation, but there might be a different “rulebook” somewhere that also gives some advice on how to handle it.
Rule 20H covers this. However, unless there is proof of cheating, a first offense gets nothing more than a warning. Also, the director is still not likely to go hunting too far for the player, especially if he is the only director in the playing room.
I don’t presume to speak for “we”. I presume to speak for me. I am confining myself to answering the questions asked in the OP. Could the player stop the clock to request relief? Yes. If the TD denies his claim, can he appeal to an appeals committee? Yes, or to a special referee. If the appeal is denied, can he appeal to the Ethics Committee? Yes. The odds of success in all cases? Pretty close to zero - because there’s no basis in the rules for reversing the original decision.
The question for most appeals is whether there was a USCF rule or Code of Ethics requirement that was not followed in reaching the original ruling. Any other “rulebook” just doesn’t apply here.
I don’t see anything unfair in the situation - so I am curious about the comment “This is one of those cases where fairness and the rules are not necessarily going to be the same.” They seem exactly the same to me. It may be a sympathetic situation, it doesn’t appear to be an unfair one.
This doesn’t appear to be an act of God. He left. He didn’t check the lock. He could have asked someone to watch to make sure that he could get back in. It is not necessarily a reasonable assumption that re-entry will be possible. I’ve played in many club situations where the building is locked because building staff leaves and they will not make the chess club responsible for locking up.
Again - the situation appears to be unfortunate, and hence perhaps sympathetic. But not unfair. (Would it be reasonable to assume that if I make a move allowing a 5 move combination that my lower rated player won’t see it? If they do - is that unfair?)
Yes, this is not a hard call at all, unless your opponent locked you out. Unfortunately, it is perceived that you abandoned the game
for a while, only to return, once you were let back in. I know that some of the rules are perhaps cruel and unfair, but everybody has
to play under the same rules. It would have of course been legal for your opponent to restrict you on the board, but not off.
We only know this because he was able to get back inside after 45 minutes. I believe that it is a very reasonable assumption that timely re-entry is possible. I once blacked out and was not found for 20 hours which saved my life. Especially, since he was playing a TD who should know Rule 20H, it seems to me that TD failed in his duties as a TD.
Again, he didn’t check the lock, he didn’t have someone check the door, he didn’t put a stop in the door. These are all things I and other chess players have done in the past. I don’t see how “We only know this because he was able to get back inside after 45 minutes.” is a statement that is relevant. I’ve played in enough situations over the years where I always check to make sure I can get back in. I’ve even made such assumptions as a coach, and have assigned parents to watch a door if I needed to take a team outside. I would never dream that it is reasonable to simply assume that I can re-enter.
I am sorry to hear about your difficulty via “I once blacked out and was not found for 20 hours which saved my life.” But I don’t see how this is relevant to the situation. He made a choice to leave without verifying the ability to re-enter. It was a poor choice, just as a bad move is a poor choice. I see nothing at all unfair in the situation. As I said, unfortunate - yes. Perhaps sympathetic? Yes. Unfair? No.
Does the Organizer of the event not have some responsibility here? (The playing TD could also be the Organizer). Should he not announce these potential problems with the venue. In over 40 years of playing USCF chess I have never thought of checking the list you mention above. My difficulty was intended to indicated that said player might have had some accident like a fall that delayed him.
I believe that it would be appropriate for the organizer to make an announcement; I believe it would be appropriate for the organizer to look for the player. But I don’t see those as limiting the player’s own responsibility since in the end everything that happened was in the player’s control. Perhaps a refund or partial refund of EF would be appropriate, but I don’t see anything in terms of the game itself, since the choices that directly impacted the game were all made by the player.