I run the annual “Oregon Open” tournament over Labor Day weekend that usually gets around 150 players, usually the largest “Open” tournament in Oregon each year. I was thinking of instituting a policy that a player who forfeits a game without a valid reason will not be allowed to play in the Oregon Open the following year (we currently have this policy in place for one of our other tournaments). Do you think this is a good idea? I think this policy would be better for our purposes than the suggestion in the US Chess rulebook which says a player “may be fined a sum up to the amount of the entry fee, payable to the organizer. The player may be barred from any of the organizer’s tournaments until the fine is paid.”
Also, I came across this: new.uschess.org/news/just-rules … on%20below. It says “The rules allow you to claim a forfeit win after an hour—don’t forget your equipment must be set up.” Wouldn’t the part about equipment being set up only apply if variation 13D1 is being used or am I misunderstanding the rule?
“Your opponent’s no-show conduct is borderline disrespectful.” For those who forfeit without a valid reason, I would take out the word “borderline” here.
Consider charging a refundable deposit after players withdrew too often without notice. That refundable deposit would be returned after the player finished the final round or withdrew with proper notice.
For the one hour forfeit (if that is before the end of the first time control) some organizers require the equipment to be set up. It also avoids the case of White going to the board, not seeing anybody, watching games while waiting, then Black arriving at the board, not seeing anybody, watching games while waiting, and finally both players going to report a no-show forfeit win.
We used to have a policy of assessing fines for mid-event forfeits in events run by the Nebraska State Chess Association, but enforcement was spotty and people would claim (correctly or otherwise) that they tried to give notice they couldn’t make a round or were withdrawing and the message just didn’t get through. (This was in the days before cell phones, not sure if they made things easier or harder.)
I don’t disagree with your idea, but caution you that it’s an Ethics complaint waiting to happen. See 6(h) here: http://www.uschess.org/index.php/Governance/Code-of-Ethics-of-the-US-Chess-Federation-US-Chess.html I would want to get some sort of pre-clearance, either via an ADM or from the EB before I attempted such a thing. Also, consider Mr. Nolan’s comment above. I know I make that mistake probably one game in 500 to 1000. If your ratio is like mine, it’ll happen almost every year at a tournament that size.
Excellent. If you’re confident in your ability to defend any Ethics cases, that’s great. As I’ve said, I have no special protection for anyone who forfeits a game. I hope you fully understand Mr. Nolan’s post.
(h) Attempting to interfere with the rights of any US Chess member, such as by barring someone from entering a US Chess-sanctioned event for personal reasons. Generally, no individual should be barred from a US Chess-sanctioned event for which he or she meets the advertised qualifications, without appropriate due process, and then only for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess. If a ban on future participation is imposed, the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.
Key phrases:
“without appropriate due process”
“only for behavior inconsistent with the principles of this code and/or the rules of chess”
“the individual should be notified of the ban prior to his attempting to appear at future events.”
Key questions:
Does ‘future participation’ refer to subsequent rounds in the same event or to future entry in that organizer’s events? Or both? I’ll focus on the latter since that’s the context of OP.
Is the mere act of forfeiting a game without notice sufficient to satisfy phrase 2? Probably not. That’s where “without good reason” comes into play. But if the player thinks he had good reason and the TD/organizer don’t, an ethics complaint is a likely outcome.
One would have to assume Micah, and any reasonably competent TD would have that discussion at the time of the infraction if possible. The organizer, if a different party, might not be present to do so. And if the player never came back after the forfeit, there would have been no opportunity to do so. And if the player tried to call in but was unable to, or claims he did so, the discussion wouldn’t happen either. Still, the organizer has the opportunity to reach out to the player before their next scheduled event. I’m guessing Micah has a plan to do so in such a situation.
If one cannot fathom how an ethics complaint could result from this policy, they are in for a surprise. If they recognize the possibility but have a game plan to ensure they do not run afoul of the policy, they might be right. They might not. Good luck!
In Freakonomics, Chicago economist Steven Levitt wrote of a day care facility that was having trouble with parents picking their children up promptly. They started assessing a fine for late pickups. The number of late pickups increased.
Moral: Having an economic penalty to try to discourage a behavior may have the opposite effect, because people feel they’ve been given permission to continue that behavior by paying the penalty.
I’ve seen this among chess players, we increased the upcharge for on-site registration fees at our events to $25, and the number of last-minute registrants went up.
I think you should seriously think about Jeff Wiewel’s idea. Let’s face it; everyone will (ex post) come up with a “good excuse”, so with either the fine (rule book) or suspension (you) you’re stuck trying to determine if you want to accept that excuse. A refundable deposit puts the burden entirely on the player to behave properly this time.
I’m not a lawyer, but imposing a security deposit requirement on specific participants might create due process and equal treatment issues of its own, so no solution is without its downsides.
I mean that, as hard as I try, somewhere between 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 games I direct turns out to have a player I should not have paired because he had either requested a bye that I had overlooked or thought he had, but had done so improperly. If the Oregon Open has a similar rated to events that I direct, you’ll likely have such a dispute every year or two.
I would have thought the second statement was especially clear. People come to my tournaments to play, not to sit around and pocket free (tournament) points. As such I have contempt for anyone who forfeits a game.
Alas, you’ll have great difficulty convincing a player who is forbidden to enter the Oregon Open that you’re not in violation of the Code, and if he files, the Respondent doesn’t get to determine if his actions violate the Code of Ethics. That’s why I suggest you get pre-approval. YMMV.
If this is the case, then I’d strongly advise against you doing this. Here’s a hypothetical that instantly comes to mind about how easily this could go devastatingly wrong:
Imagine that you pair me with Mr. Mulford, and he never shows up so I, unhappily, take my forfeit point secure in the knowledge that even though this happened to me, at least he’ll have consequences. Now the next year I show up all excited to play in the Oregon Open and I see that Mr. Mulford is also playing. I find a TD and ask how this is possible since he forfeited against me last year and I know the policy. I get referred to Mr. Smith, who is the organizer and enforcing this policy. You tell me: “Yeah, I asked him about that. Turns out Mulford’s second round game ran late, so he didn’t finish his lunch until 3:50 and he didn’t figure he could make it back to the board in the last ten minutes before the forfeit, so he didn’t try, but it wasn’t really his fault, so I decided he could play.”
Now I’m likely to be extremely unhappy, and if Mr. Mulford forfeits another game, that opponent is going to be extremely unhappy since presumably the idea behind this policy is to remove repeat offenders.
I just think that, no matter how tempting, this is a dangerous policy and far worse if you’re not going to enforce it.
Even better - you apply the policy to one and excuse a second. The first one finds out and you are in the deep stuff. Because obviously you had no good reason to ban #2., so says the complainant.
