I’m a new tournament director, and I’d like to get some clarification on a rules question that came up in a tournament I directed recently. The game was G/60 sudden death and the players were using an analog clock. One player, whose flag was about to fall, requested a delay clock. Another player next to him, who is also a tournament director, stated that this request was a draw offer. The opposing player then accepted his draw offer.
I looked up this issue in the rule book, and I found that a player using an analog clock in a sudden death time control can claim insufficient losing chances and request a delay clock. The claim also constitutes a draw offer. I believe this is the rule that the other director had in mind. However, the player did not claim insufficient losing chances - he merely requested a delay clock in order to prolong his time. Does a request for a delay clock imply an insufficient losing chances claim?
Did the player give a reason for requesting a delay clock? If not, you should have asked him for one (which may have pinned him down to making an ILC claim.)
Players do NOT have the right to request delay clocks whenever they choose during a game and certainly not without giving a reason for the request. (And you are not OBLIGED to honor the request, either.)
If a player wants to be absolutely certain of having a delay clock, he should bring one with him, unless it is an event where the organizer is committed to providing clocks for all players.
In general, the only two times you would put a delay clock on a game that has been going with an analog clock are: 1) the analog clock is no longer working (spring breaks or it is battery run and the battery goes out without a replacement); 2) an insufficient losing chances claim is being made and the TD opts to resolve it by putting a delay clock on (in the event the opponent opts to refuse the automatic draw offer involved).
As I recall the situation, after the player requested a time delay clock it was his opponent, not another TD, who stated that a request for a delay clock was a draw offer. After making the statement the opponent then accepted the offer.
If I were the TD I would have asked for clarification as to if the player making the request was making an ILC claim. Providing that he agreed that it was an ILC claim, I would have confirmed that it was also a draw offer. The situation would have ended the same, we would have gotten there a slightly different route.
As I stated after the tournament, great job of directing. Providing there isn’t a conflict I hope to make it back next year. I just wish you had done away with that silly touch move rule.
The player did not specify a reason for requesting a delay clock. The analog clock was still working, so I suppose one could assume that an “insufficient losing chances” claim was being made, but I agree it would be best to ask the player to specify his reasons for requesting a new clock.
Grant, it was a player on the next board (Ben) who stated that the request constituted a draw offer. I believe that Ben is also certified as a TD. After a short discussion, the opponent of the player who requested the clock accepted the draw offer, since he had made an draw offer earlier that had been refused. Both players seem to accept the draw (if grudgingly) and there were no protests, so I let it stand. I can’t say that I was happy at how I handled the situation though. Next time I will know better.
Yes, the touch-move rule can certainly be pesky. I heard that you had touched the wrong piece in that game, but I did not see what happened myself as I was busy watching another “time trouble” game. Clocks with time delay certainly make those situations a lot easier!
I don’t think you should be hard on yourself at all, you did fine. Again, as I recall the situation unfolded rather quickly and the opponent did see it as an ILC claim. I don’t recall Ben being the first to state that the claim was a draw offer, but if he did it should have been privately to you, so as to not risk interfering in the game, especially since his (our) game was affected by the outcome of the game in question.
I think you handled the situation just fine. You did not appear to be a new tournament director at all. You even put up with the kids looking over your shoulder while you made pairings. The tournament ran like clockwork. The only hitch is that none us won a prize in the “Rubber Ducky” race. We will try to come back to Parkersburg next year. Tell Pat Kelly I said hi.
One thing you need to be aware of is that rule 14H has been revised since the rulebook was published. There is a file of rulebook changes on this site, and it contains the amended rule (among other things). The revised rule contains a TD TIP which states that “There is no rule allowing players, after the game has started, to ask for a properly set delay clock to be placed on their game, which would replace an analog clock or an improperly set delay or incremental clock. Only the TD can initiate placing a clock with time delay capabilities on a game after a 14H claim has been made and the steps of 14H2 have been applied. As a result, the player wishing to place a time delay clock on the game must first make a 14H claim.”
Note that when placing the clock, the claimant (i.e., the one making the 14H (ILC) claim) gets only half of his remaining time, while the opponent gets all of his remaining time. After the clock has been placed and started, the ILC claim becomes a draw offer under 14B3, which the opponent may accept or decline.
I heard that you had touched the wrong piece in that game, but I did not see what happened myself as I was busy watching another “time trouble” game. Clocks with time delay certainly make those situations a lot easier!