In my last tournament, I was paired with a 12 year old girl (I was white). I got to the board early and set up my pieces (a nice wooden set) and a full-size Chronos clock. My opponent (and her father) arrived a few minutes later, before the official start of the round, and she asked if we could use her clock. I agreed to that and we swapped clocks. But then her father added that she gets her choice of equipment because she had the black pieces. I was a little annoyed but I didn’t reply since I had already agreed to switch clocks and she didn’t push to switch sets also. But I’m confused by the USCF rules under this situation. If the black player arrives on time but white has already set everything up using standard equipment, can black really insist on using their own equipment? As a followup question, can the parent of the player with the black pieces insist on changing equipment???
As long as the player of the black pieces arrives on time, they have the choice (if it is standard) of equipment. I am not a TD, but I doubt it matters much whether that request is made by the player or their parent.
I am a TD, and your first sentence is basically correct - as long as the player of the black pieces arrives on time, and provides legal equipment he or she has the right to force use of that equipment. (The exception to that is that the organizer of the tournament may mandate use of equipment he or she supplies.) Whether or not the player of the white pieces has already set up other equipment is irrelevant. Technically speaking, your second sentence is not correct. The parent is a spectator, and as such has no right to insist on anything whatsoever. However, in this case all the girl would have to do is to echo her father’s request to use her own equipment and it would have legal force, so arguing this point here would not likely be productive for you.
OK, thanks for clarifying. I ended up winning anyway (using my set and her clock). But some parents do need to understand that they are spectators and behave accordingly but that’s a whole different topic!
A few years ago in Sturbridge at one of Bill’s tournaments I was matched as Black against a 16 year old woman from NYC. I had my board and wood pieces set up along with a Saitek clock. She asked if we could use her Cronos and I told her I preferred my clock. Her mother, picture the Queen Mary coming into birth at flank speed, ran off to Bill with her daughter to complain. Of course, they got nowhere. The young woman was upset and played to a draw well below her strength. As a New Yorker to the core, it was really fun to see how upset mommy was.
While this is generally true, the first sentence needs to be modified for clocks. If White’s clock is more preferred than Black’s, then White’s clock is used for the game. A recent rules change (a substantial rewrite of rules 5E and 5F) established a strict order of preference for types of clock. (The order of preference depends on both the type of time control (increment, delay, neither) and the capability of the clock.) Please refer to the rules changes document for more detail.
I guess it wouldn’t hurt to point out that, in a tournament which uses increment, an increment-capable clock is preferred over a clock that is only delay-capable, but a delay-capable clock is in turn preferred over a clock that is neither increment-capable nor delay-capable.
If a clock with only delay capability is used in an increment tournament, the delay should be set for whatever the increment should have been (e.g. a 30-second increment becomes a 30-second delay), with no other accommodations made (unless announced in pre-event publicity) to compensate for the lack of increment.
And the person furnishing the clock should certainly let his opponent know that the clock is set for delay instead of increment, and should also suggest that the opponent might want to furnish his own increment-capable clock if he has one.