I have already contacted Tim Just about this, so this post is not necessarily a call to any further action on anyone’s part.
In 2013, I contacted Franc Guadalupe, Tim Just, and some others about the incorrect wording of Rule 14B3 as written in the 5th (1993?) edition. The precise wording seemed to identify the wrong player as having a particular right, since “the opponents of a player offered a draw in this manner” and “the opponent of a player WHO offered a draw in this manner” are different players.
Luckily, Mr. Guadalupe was able to make the change just before the publication of the 6th (2014?) edition, or at least, my copy has corrected phrasing.
However, the same error appears in the 7th (2019) edition. Again, this is not necessarily a call to further action on anyone’s part, since Mr. Just is already aware of the issue. Obviously, not much can be done about already-printed copies, but I hope there is an online correction.
Please note: my suggestion that the rule be rewritten/rephrased is independent of the disagreement over flagging (by “force” of silence) one’s opponent when he/she has improperly offered a draw without moving; this was debated in the comments section of one the ‘Just the Rules’ columns in CLO. I think it’s clear enough that force-flagging in that situation is nowhere in the intention of the rule, but maybe it could be stated more explicitly so that no future disagreement occurs.
It is a little strong to label a draw offer as “improper” if the offer is made without an accompanying move. It is merely “out of sequence” or “premature”. The opponent then has the option of saying nothing until the player completes his draw offer by making a move and pressing the clock. I assume this is what you mean by “force-flagging”.
Even if the opponent uses “force-flagging” in the hopes of causing the player to run out of time, there is nothing unethical about it. The player should have made a move to accompany the draw offer in the first place. If he doesn’t, it’s his own fault.
The rulebook (rule 14) uses the term “proper” for draw offers made after a move is determined and before the clock is pressed. That would imply that all other offers are improper (and offers made after pressing the clock are explicitly stated to be subject to potential penalties for annoying the opponent.
So I would accept improper. Also, I agree that force-flagging is not a rule since the rulebook explicitly allows making a move after making the improper offer and before hearing a response to the offer.
By force-flagging, I don’t just mean saying nothing in the HOPES of flagging them; I mean FORCING the opponent (who offered a draw without first moving) to flag by not responding to their draw offer. In his reply to one of Mr. Just’s CLO articles, TD Scott Hunt made the case that the player who offered a draw in that (improper) manner could be PREVENTED from moving, the power of response being wholly in the hands of his/her opponent. I never found Mr. Hunt’s argument compelling, but he’s right if he says that the rule could be rewritten so as to leave no doubt (not that I myself had any doubt). In any case, my own point was that even though the same rule (14B3) is involved, I don’t mean to get into that debate here.
I had a parent argue her child didn’t mean to pick up the piece we all agreed he picked up because it was a stupid move and he had written a different move on his score sheet before he picked up the piece he did…
Well if you need to use the word “willful” that’s fine. Since I always knew the USCF rules allowed a player to make a move after a 14B3 draw offer. My goal was to simply get the rule rewritten properly. “Force flagging” is something I have never accepted nor have I ever applied such a ruling to a game. A game of chess is to be played out between two opponents with both playing with moral principles and not to circumvent the rules to gain an advantage. That is unethical especially if you know that the “way” you are offering a draw is wrong then you are acting in an inappropriate and unsportsmanlike manner. I prefer FIDE’s rule regarding draw offers and the application of Article 11.5 to improper draw offers.
At the club level my policy is as posted, any player knowingly offering a draw contrary to Rule 14B1 and claimed properly by the opponent is subject to a penalty. Penalty (not forfeit)depending on the event and the importance of the particular game.
How are these two sentences any different? I don’t see how you can ever force your opponent not to move. There is certainly no requirement that you must wait until you hear your opponent’s answer before moving. If Black improperly offers a draw without moving and White just sits there and doesn’t say anything, there is no way White is ever forcing Black not to move. He can at best only hope that Black runs out of time. At any time Black could simply give up waiting for White to respond and then move a piece and hit the clock. He should know that his clock is ticking. I don’t see the issue here.
Now this is just wrong. If it’s still Black’s turn, he does not have to wait for White to respond with his own clock running. He can make his move at any time. The draw offer still stands, of course.
Unfortunately this thread has become more about an incorrect interpretation of 14B3, but (if you look back in the thread) I only mentioned the interpretation issue to mention what I was NOT trying to get into. Even the movement of the thread to this new category is testament to that. I just want to be clear that although I was initially posting about 14B3, I didn’t want to be taken as posting about Scott Hunt’s interpretation of that rule, which generated some responses, but should really be dealt with in another thread – not THIS thread about the actual wording differences between the last two rulebook editions. At the risk of being repetitive, I will say that I think we have literally lost the thread here.
But OK, since the question is being put to me, I’ll answer. The difference is between what I meant by force-flagging and what others might THINK I meant. (One person responded that there wasn’t anything improper about it, but I think they MEANT something different.) I meant having the TD enFORCING this INcorrect idea that the player who offered the draw without first moving cannot himself (or herself) move; I did not mean to refer to mere HOPING that a player would forget to move and flag while considering a draw offer. (Obviously I agree that there is nothing wrong with hoping.) So I think ‘force’ is the correct word to use, especially when backed up by a TD who interprets the rule in this incorrect way. I never endorsed that interpretation, and I never meant to discuss it here, other than to distinguish it from what I WAS discussing, i.e. the wording of the rule. So your disagreement with the wrong interpretation is an agreement with me, and your confusion over the distinction between having the TD on your side to enFORCE an incorrect interpretation, and on the other hand NOT having any TD make any ruling in one’s favor, shows the difference between hoping and “forcing.” I never endorsed this forcing, and I actually disagree with it because I agree that it’s improper for a TD to leave the result completely in the hands of the player receiving the improper offer. So please don’t confuse my mention of an improper procedure with an endorsement of such a procedure.
A TD who does this is clearly in need of some retraining. I looked up the rule again and you’re certainly right. The word “who” is missing. However, the rest of the paragraph makes it pretty clear who we’re talking about. This shouldn’t be misinterpreted, but then I’m continually surprised at how people misinterpret the obvious.
The rule does clearly state "has the right to require the player who offered the draw to move. Even though the first “who”, which I placed back in in brackets, is missing, this should be obvious. Some rules are a little ambiguous. This is not one of them.