The players of a game were in mutual time pressure (sudden death time control), with a small crowd observing. White’s time expired but several more moves were played. Black then called the flag. Black’s clock showed two seconds. The observers made a few comments noting that the flag had been down for several moves and at this time a tournament director stepped in and stated that the clock was set incorrectly - it stopped keeping time once White had flagged. This was verified as the clock continued to show two seconds when the buttons indicate that Black’s time would be running. Black owns this clock. Neither player was aware that it was set incorrectly (batteries fell out of this GameTime the previous week and the settings were restored incorrectly). This tournament director was the only person to notice. The tournament director also noted that during the game, while play continued with White’s flag down, Black’s delay counted all the way down to zero - but the timing of Black’s move was such that he didn’t know whether the time would have shown one second or both flags would have been down, had the clock been set correctly. At this point White asks what the rule is in light of the clock being set incorrectly. So here is where you come in - please help us out!
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the clock was set incorrectly.
It was, however, set according to the FIDE phihlosophy (TDs should call flags) rather than the USCF philosophy (players must call flags).
The 4th edition rulebook said it was “highly desirable” for both sides of a clock to stop when one player’s time has expired. This avoids the double-flag situation where, if one player calls either flag after both are down, the game is drawn.
This idea, however, didn’t go over too well with TDs and players in the USA, and the wording was softened in the 5th edition.
Still, however, the 5th edition doesn’t go so far as to declare halt-at-end mode illegal (nor “incorrectly set”). And that’s a good thing – USCF is out of compliance with FIDE on this issue.
In fact, I believe that some clocks (such as DGT) cannot be set any other way – they are always in halt-at-end mode. Do we want to declare the world’s most popular clock (DGT) illegal, just because it complies with FIDE? I think not.
The differences do, however, put USCF TDs on the horns of a dilemma when one flag falls, both clocks stop, and neither player makes a claim for a while. I’d be interested to know what the actual ruling was in this case.
I do find it slightly peculiar that the clock continued to apply the 5-second delay on black’s side even though black’s main time had stopped with time remaining. That little quirk really doesn’t affect anything, though.
Bill Smythe
I believe the DGT North American only halts at end for increment time controls, not for delay time controls.
I’m afraid this is a rare instance in which I disagree with Bill Smythe. I do believe that setting the clock to halt at end is incorrect, as it interferes with rule 14G, the language from the fourth edition of the rule book notwithstanding. In fact, I am introducing an ADM for this year’s Delegates Meeting that will rewrite rule 16Bb to provide much more explicit guidance for correctly setting digital clocks. Among the changes I will make is that all sound must be disabled (including, but not limited to, beeping when a player reaches the end of the time control, beeping when a player reaches the end of the final (or only) time control, beeping to warn a player that he is close to the end of a time control, and beeping when a player presses the clock). I will also explicitly state that when one player runs out of time, the clock for the other player must continue running, if possible. I will also include a TD tip in my rewrite that notes the difference with FIDE regulations and that some clocks can not be set to disable halt on end.
I left out the rest of the story so as not to bias responses - but I will share it later. What would you do here?
This seems identical to the situation in Mr. Braunlich’s recent thread.
http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17133
Alex Relyea
You are correct - the clock does not function that way. The delay does not decrement after the time for one side expires, but continually shows 5 seconds. The tournament director’s recollection of what he saw during the time scramble was not challenged and actions were based on the information as he provided it. As you stated this may not affect anything.
How would you rule with your ADM in place vs. the current rule book?
Thanks, Alex. I read that before posting but chose to start a new thread. In Mr. Braunlich’s event the clock setting was not an issue, but the players decided to play on without regard to the clock which created a few other issues.
I would support Ken’s ADM—and look forward to seeing the video of the Rules Workshop. It seems to run counter to the current trend of aligning USCF rules with FIDE, but that makes life intereresting.
With a 30-second increment, halt-at-end is not an issue. If a player fails to notice the opponent’s flag has fallen in that time control, that’s his/her ‘fault.’ However, with delay or increment of five seconds or less, halt-at-end can be a big issue—as in the case described in this thread.
It is not good that USCF rules do not specify whether to set halt-at-end or not, or make one option standard and the other less-preferred, or whatever. That can make the difference between a win (or loss) and draw.
Since that is the state of the Rulebook, though, I cannot see any ruling other than a flag-fall time forfeit in the case cited here. Assuming the claimant had mating material left, that is. (Please tell me it was not K vs. K + 2 Knights.)
P.S. Ken is right about the DGT NA. In increment mode it freezes time when the first flag falls. In delay mode the other clock continues to run even after one side runs out of time. In the user’s guide it explains the latter option is in accord with USCF rules.
I am introducing another ADM to modify rule 14G (“both flags down”). I will change the wording from “both flags down” to “both players out of time.” The problem I see is that the wording “both flags down” is a holdover from the days of only analog clocks. On an analog clock, unless one of the players has explicitly stopped the clock by leveling the buttons, one or the other side must be running (or the clock needs to be wound, and is thus “defective”).
If my direct observation was that Black had clearly used at least as much time as was shown on his clock when it halted, then Black has also clearly overstepped the time limit, and the game is drawn under rule 14G.
As Mr. Relyea pointed out, there is a similar case in the “no-call flag-fall” thread in this forum. In that case, the game clearly went on about one hour longer than would be expected from the time control. In that case, I would rule that both 14G and 14G2 applied even though one flag had not “fallen” (the clock had halted showing five minutes and forty-four seconds remaining). Nonetheless, from the description of the situation, it was eminently clear that both players had overstepped the time limit.
Both players had mating material on the board and the position was neither checkmate nor stalemate. I should have specified that in my original post. Thank you for the ruling! I’ll add what happened after others have a chance to disagree with your ruling.
Incidentally, I do agree with Bill Smythe (and disagree with the TD) in that there is nothing in the 5th edition of the rule book that says the clock was set incorrectly because “claim mode” was on. (The clock in question being a GameTime, the “halt on end” option is named “claim”).
This TD is just a glutton for punishment.
If I had been the TD in question, I would not have intervened as the players were in agreement that Black had won by White’s time expiring. The discussion about how Black didn’t notice White’s flag down for several moves doesn’t affect that outcome at all.
If I had been the Chief TD and one of my floor TDs had done this, right after I’d beaten him/her with whatever was handy, I’d break out the rulebook, and if I couldn’t find anything that explicitly called the clock as being invalidly set (which other posters say is not explicitly stated), I’d uphold the Black win.
Ken,
Please clarify, considering that until the clock stopped, the game was played with 5-second delay (my understanding from the thread).
Thanks,
Michael Langer
First of all, it appears the TD may have intervened without being asked to, i.e. before white challenged black’s time forfeit claim. The TD should keep his mouth shut, until and unless such a challenge arises. If black claims, and white does not protest, game is over, black wins.
Second, if white does protest, and the TD must make a ruling, he should go along with whatever the clock says, halt-at-end or not. It is extremely unwise, IMHO, to rule based on what the clock “probably” would have indicated, had halt-at-end been disabled. Sooner or later, there are going to be unclear cases. It won’t always be obvious whether black’s time “would have” expired also.
One must keep in mind the rationale behind each rule one quotes. In the case of the “both flags down is a draw” rule, the obvious purpose is to come up with the fairest possible ruling in cases where the evidence has not been preserved. When the evidence is still there – as provided by the clock, please, not by witness testimony that may be inaccurate or biased – go with it.
Bill Smythe
Thanks, everyone! Here is the rest of the story:
I was Black, the clock is mine 
, and I am the previously-mentioned glutton for punishment. While the position is not relevant to the ruling, I had a Knight and three pawns (two of them passed and connected) vs. a Knight and two pawns, isolated, one of them passed but soon to be gobbled by my King.
The TD who noticed the clock setting was not the TD for this tournament, but happened to be present watching the game. I was the TD for this tournament (yes - I play in my own events ; I have commented on this in other threads). After the discussion about the clock started White asked to know the rule. Had it not been my game I would have ruled that the game was over (Black won). I instead chose to apply rule 21E, which may need an ADM to shorten the official wording to be: “if you are dumb enough to play in an event that you direct then rule against yourself”. I requested that the intervening TD make a ruling and he called it a draw. I repeated to the observers that it was a draw (for clarity), and then rushed to get the final round started.
I didn’t use my own equipment in the final round - it was used by my previous opponent and claim mode (halt-on-end) had not been turned off . Black flagged and of course the clock stopped keeping time. The players began discussing the game and so I asked for the result. They reported that White won, I marked down the result and moved on (Had there been disagreement then…I’ll not think about that).
After the tournament I told the TD that I disagree with his ruling. He often comes and helps at the tournaments; since I pair by hand he helps me to identify errors. I am appreciative of his help. In this event he also saved me a lot of time in getting out the final round pairings when I was running late.
Thanks for the rest of the story! Now it’s time for me to be embarrassed 
here and there.
Oops. I should have realized, when you originally referred to “a tournament director”, that it was not the tournament TD who was intervening.
I infer that, when black initially claimed a time forfeit, white did not protest immediately, so everybody (players, spectators, the extra-curricular TD) assumed the game was over and it was OK to talk. So I guess I should partially withdraw my comment that “the” TD should have kept his mouth shut. (It might still be questionable, though, for an “extra” TD to raise dust that doesn’t need to be raised.)
I agree both with the ruling you wanted to make, and with your decision not to make it. This is exactly what a playing TD should do.
Whew!! I’m glad you didn’t have to go there.
It’s way past time for TD rulings to become more friendly with the idea of “halt at end” (“claim mode”). The both-flags-are-down-is-a-draw rule should apply only to situations where, indeed, the clock indicates that both players’ time has expired.
Bill Smythe
Yes. When this well-respected TD called attention to the clock setting (which at the time neither he nor I understood to be a legal setting) it immediately gave the other player hope that he didn’t really just lose the game. To my knowledge the TD had no intention of imposing a ruling, but given that the game was mine I requested that he do so. I learned a lot from the responses including that an ADM is in the works on this very topic.
I was surprised to learn that “halt at end” is an acceptable clock setting, mostly because clocks have always worked the other way in my limited experience. I have considered the arguments for and against and I support making “halt at end” the USCF standard for sudden death time controls - or at least specifying it as an acceptable setting.