I will use the defense that an event with G/15,d0 for one player and G/20,d0 for another player is quick ratable since it says in the rulebook that to be quick rated, “Total playing time for each player is more than 10 and less than 30 minutes (< 10 mm + ss < 30)” so a game played at G/15,d0 for one player and G/20,d0 for another player has total playing time of more than 10 and less than 30 minutes for each player.
Boring.
I’m not sure what your point is by saying “boring”.
Most likely to your defense, which in the eyes at least of this Rules Committee member would not stand should an appeal be made against an event like that which you organize.
While you will not find a direct rule that says you can’t do that, the conditions for players are not the same and any rating of a game such as this would pollute the rating system overall.
The rule book is not going to cover every possible variation. It’s going to assume some common sense and better judgement from directors.
I wasn’t actually planning on running any time odds events. Just wanted to get this thread going again after no one responded to my comment and thought saying I was planning on running time odds events would do the trick.
I’m just saying that I agree with Mike Nolan it would probably be good to have something in the rulebook that states time odds games aren’t ratable.
I know one TD who has submits time odds playoff games for rating (I believe he just thinks time odds games are ratable). Since no one with standing has complained (the people who played in one of these time odds games) he continues to believe time odds games are ratable and keeps rating them. If someone without standings could complain, we could put a stop to it.
How does one let people know that you’re running USCF ratable time odds games? You advertise G/10 and when people show up, say, “Surprise, we’re docking White 2 minutes”? Somehow it seems unlikely that no one would object to that. So I’m assuming that if these are actually happening that people know about it in advance. Club web site? Flyers? Something that you could point to that shows that somebody is actually doing this.
I think the relevant point is that the games are time odds (presumably, “Armageddon”) playoff games. My guess is that the fact that the director thinks these are ratable would not be advertised in the pre-tournament publicity or announced before the start of the first round.
In no way does this mean the practice is in any manner acceptable, of course. And this Rules Committee member would also treat a claim of “the rulebook didn’t say it isn’t allowed” with the utmost skepticism as well.
I don’t know if there are any Delegates who will bring this up in Orlando, and you won’t be one of them, as you’re unwilling to spend the money and time to go to the meetings and become an active part of the rule-making process. That’s fine, everyone has their own priorities, and ensuring the rulebook is updated apparently isn’t one of yours.
I think most of those who will be present in Orlando would agree that time odds and piece odds games are not USCF-ratable, even if that isn’t currently explicitly stated in the rulebook. Draw odds is a somewhat different issue, I don’t know where Delegates might stand on that one.
Oh. I missed the fact that this was referring to playoff games only. So the horrible sin being committed is that an occasional Armageddon blitz playoff games is being submitted for rating (without any apparent objection from the players).
Tom, maybe it comes down to whether one is a “That which is not permitted in the rules is prohibited” person or a “That which is not prohibited in the rules is permitted” person.
I suspect the former results in shorter rulebooks. 
I haven’t checked, but I suspect that the Armageddon playoffs that have occurred in several recent US Championships were not submitted for rating.
I could (almost) understand someone thinking that the occasional Armageddon playoff game is OK, since the USCF does it for the national title (though, as you say, probably not as a rated game). It’s certainly the case that even without specific language prohibiting odds games from being rated, that there is clearly no indication within the text of the rule book that supports different time controls for different players. The repeated phrase is “the” allotted time, which would have to be “their” allotted if each player could be different. When time is taken off the clocks for late arrivals, defects, etc. it’s done equally, which could result in one player losing on time if the times aren’t equal to start, etc.
Another of those dumb threads that Micah won’t let die a well-deserved death.
I suspect rule 3A covers piece odds games, since it says both players have 16 pieces and goes on to describe each piece and its starting position. (That would also appear to support the claim that Chess960 is not USCF-ratable.)
Should the Delegates be so inclined, 5C could certainly be modified to include a statement such as:
The rating of Armageddon games would probably be prohibited under this proposed rule, since as I understand it the players bid for the time odds they’re wiling to accept.
The issue of draw odds may require further discussion, since there are pairing systems that use draw odds, or something like them, and our practice has been that how pairings are determined does not matter to the ratings system unless it invokes the match limitations.
Do we still rate “thematic” tournaments? If so, one could get QN odds games by requiring that the game start with
1 Nc3 Nf6 2 Ne4 Nxe4 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8
We do rate thematic tournaments, but I think that players aren’t likely to enter them if the ‘theme’ is too one-sided. The Free Market System wins again.
Also, a thematic tournament is only rated if all of the games start the same way regardless of whether the higher or lower rated player is playing white. Most odds events I see have only the higher rated player conceding odds.
P.S. With knight moves (and pawn moves if the odds-given pawn is the c or g pawn) you can have a “thematic odds” event with any pawn or piece given as odds, but there would be one problem with rook odds and the customary rule that castling to the side with the odds-given rook involves just a two-square king shift.
I think it would be better to say that both players have to have the same time control, not the same clock settings, because a clock might have per player settings that do not affect the time control.
I don’t know if that would make a difference for any current clock, but it would for the clock I’ve been thinking of making for myself. There would be a base unit that contains the battery and most of the circuitry, and then two satellite units wired to the base (one for each player).
The satellite units would each contain the button to stop that player’s clock and start the other, and a display that shows both player’s times. The satellites could be independently set to display delay using simple delay (like the DGT North American), separate delay counter (like the Excalibur), or Bronstein delay (like most DGT clocks).
The idea here is that this design allows each player to see the time in the way that they find most useful, and also allows them to place the display and button where they find them most comfortable.
(I’m not sure about the base and satellite approach yet…it might be better to have all the logic in the satellites and have them connect directly to each other)
I can’t think of any reason that a game should be non-ratable just because I’m viewing our times using Bronstein mode and my opponent is viewing them using a separate delay count down, as long as we each got to choose the mode we wanted.
How about:
I’m sure someone can still find a way to creatively interpret that. 
In the first time control, use a fish fork and salad fork. Start with a service plate, but remove it after the first move, and replace it with the salad, etc.
Reminds me of a Bar Mitzvah dinner we went to in downtown Chicago in the 70’s.
Who did you say wasn’t letting this thread die, Tom?