Drunkenness at Tournaments - What is the TD Supposed to Do?

I attended a USCF sanctioned tournament this weekend. I was playing at a board next to another board that had a player clearly drunk. Drunk to the point that he could barely make his moves or record them. He even feel asleep several times, disrupting his pieces on the board. His brother, who was my opponent, even reached over and nudged him awake to tell him it was his move when he feel asleep. The drunk player’s opponent did notify the TD but did not register a formal complaint. It was very distracting to see all this happen while playing.

Questions:

  1. Should the TD, seeing drunkenness, intervene without a formal complaint by players?

  2. Was it against the rules for his brother to tell him to wake up and make a move?

  3. When he disrupted his pieces while falling asleep, what is done when that happens?

I discussed this with the TD after the game. He consulted the rules book, but did not find any specific references to this type of conduct, i.e., drunkenness. I would appreciate it if other USCF TDs would provide their thoughts and answers to my questions. Fortunately this was a senior tournament, so no children or teens were present.

See rule 20G. Annoying behavior prohibited. Or, Chapter 5—All players are responsible, number 1.

Also see this thread - viewtopic.php?p=28245#p28245

Tim, what about questions 2 and 3? The TD did find rule 20G, but didn’t think it was specific enough.

The whole purpose of 20G’s ambiguity, I think, is to permit it to be used at the director’s discretion, since it is impossible to make a specific rule for all possible forms of annoying behavior.

  1. See 20E2.
  2. See 11C.

Alex Relyea

Yep.

I remember one time at a tournament I was playing in there was a drunk IM, swaying and barely able to stay on a chair, who was paired against an expert. The IM played, took notation (totally illegible), and crushed the expert.
The IM stayed awake but the game did draw a lot of spectators who wanted to see if the IM was too drunk to avoid losing miserably.

There have been a number of titled players who played better drunk than most of us could ever play sober.

To play on a Winston Churchillism: “In the morning I will be sober, and you will still be a patzer”.

The rules are intentionally vague to permit director and organizer discretion in situations like this.

If it’s my event (as both director and organizer), I would intervene in the situation described and instruct the player to take a cab home. Depending on the status of the tournament, I would consider partially or fully refunding his or her entry fee upon the arrival of the cab (not before), not because the player deserves a refund, but because it is in my interest to get him home safely and to provide my other customers with a pleasant experience.

The player’s game in progress, presuming each side has made a move, is scored as a rated loss. The brother’s conduct is technically sanctionable, but I probably let it slide.

You won’t find rulebook support for this or any other treatment of a drunk player, nor will you in any other sport. Rules are written with a presumption that players are willing and able to play. When this presumption breaks down, the rules break down, and you have to make a decision that is equitable those who are willingly and (to varying degrees) ably playing. The above reflects my notion of equity. Your mileage may vary.

Thank you Brennan for the explanation.

What about the pieces being disrupted by a person drunk and asleep? Does touch/move apply? Several were moved out of place at once.

I was at this tournament and witnessed part of the game in question. This last round game was the only blot on what was a well-run and extremely civil event. At one point the player’s opponent tried to enforce the touch move rule in what seemed to me to be a piece brushing incident. When I heard the players slightly slurred and repeated denial of touching anything I went to let the director know that there may be a future problem in the tournament room.

If the situation in the tournament room could not be resolved equitably. The game should have been terminated with a rated loss for the disruptive party involved. It is important to ensure that actions have consequences as well as rewards. Ideally workers get paid and rulebreakers harvest penalties in a just society. The chess tournament should mirror this society.

This sounds like an accidental displacement of pieces, for which application of touch move rules would be inappropriate. I would instead order reconstruction on the displacer’s own time.

But the displacement of pieces is less of an issue than a symptom of what I consider the real issue.

I just looked in the MSA and saw this was the OP’s first rated event. Thank you for taking the plunge, and please be assured that the case you witnessed was unusual.

I would have forfeited the game (rated loss) and sent him packing.

Sent whom packing? The drunken player or his brother? I can see the rationale for the latter, but it seems a bit extreme (unless the drunken player was in time pressure).

Alex Relyea

The drunk - why should all the other players be exposed to that. Especially if there are minors playing in the event.

I am reminded of the time that a Wisconsin entry in the Midwest Amateur Team pulled out (and filled) beer steins for the first (morning) round while playing a scholastic team (middle school I think.)

I may have directed that event. Or a different event with the same player. RIP.