Some organizers for security reason prefer automatically locking doors. I know, I work
for one on a regular basis. However, I also have someone by that door, in case one of
the players leaves and wants back in. There is nothing re the rules for relief in this case.
However, from a business perspective, as the organizer, I would arrange some kind of
discount, or arrangement for a future event. Call it goodwill.
Being perceived in a negative light, quite often either rightly, or wrongly is not good
for future business.
I believe that Mr. Rengert was lucky not to have been forfeited under 20H1. Consider that he took off (apparently) with 50 minutes on the clock in such a position that when he came back with five minutes remaining he decided to resign. That sounds like it could easily be interpreted as a lost position. I think that the TD bent over backwards to be fair, based on Mr. Rengert’s account only.
I still don’t see what Ethics has to do with anything.
Is this true? One can send any appeal to the office, but I believe that someone there, or perhaps the chairs of Ethics, Rules, and TDCC, decides where it goes from there.
In any event, please see my first post in this thread.
All appeals are sent to the national office. You can address it to whichever committee you want. Again, that doesn’t mean the appeal will be found to have merit.
In this particular case, it’s debatable where such an appeal would go, since one of the parties involved is playing two roles. But, I believe the chances of success are the same, regardless of its destination.
Bent over backwards? You must be kidding: the TD/player apparently sat at his board for 50 minutes without doing anything. It appears that his opponent went for a smoke break or to get a breath of fresh air and got locked out through no fault of his own.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: Why is the TD playing in the tournament? Shouldn’t he be paying attention to what is going on with the players, with the venue, and with running the tournament? Do you mean to say he sat there for 50 minutes, and was not at least a little concerned or even a little suspicious about where his opponent was? What a lousy site that you cannot go out without being able to get in, even after banging on the door. Did the TD relish the rating points he “earned”?
If it was a club event then the TD may be somebody that wants to play, is willing to be the TD for free if that is what it takes to have an event to play in, but is not particularly interested in being only a director. I regularly play in small club events I direct for free but I would not be particularly interested in making a weekly trip for free if directing was all I would be doing (it would generally be boring in a small club event with almost no issues - at my club I average getting about one rules question per month and only two or three actual disputes each year). In weekend events that I go to primarily as a TD I only play a game if a house player is needed, nobody else is available, there is enough staff to cover my preoccupation with a game, and I am not the chief TD. Those events with people that don’t have the camaraderie of being fellow club-members provide plenty of questions and disputes to counterbalance their virtual absence at the club level.
What really helps if you are a playing TD is having an additional TD available to handle any claims in your game (in the club tournaments I think I’ve had one opponent make an invalid claim in the past decade or so and it is a lot better to have somebody not playing that game that is able to say that a claim is invalid).
Thanks for all the comments and opinions. Very interesting. I guess I had originally incorrectly thought that being locked out was an act of God, and compared it to being inadvertently locked in a bathroom, but it was just a case of the building staff leaving a few hours early. I do agree that it was not the responsibility of the TD or opponent (same person) to go looking for me. Perhaps it was the responsibility of the TD, but I’m not sure whether my opponent would be responsible to let me in if they heard me pounding on the door. That would be really bad sportsmanship of my opponent though.
It was a club event with one game / night with no entry fee and no prizes, so I wasn’t out any money. My opponent was rated a lot higher then I am, so the loss of the rating points wasn’t much of an issue. The status / position of the game, of course, should be irrelevant. I will recommend to the club that as per Chapter 7 number 4, special rules pertinent to the tournaments should be posted. I agree that another, more unbiased TD should be available to make rulings as needed for games involving the TD.
Within the time period writing the above, I first thought that in the spirit of sportsmanship, my opponent or the TD could have offered me another 10 minutes or so. However, from what I’ve been reading in the official rules. I don’t know if the TD or opponent would have the right to do that. Perhaps if all parties agree to the terms?
Have you read 20H1? You’ll have to explain why your opponent shouldn’t think that you completely abandoned the game and went home, and the status/position of the game is very relevant to that issue.
I don’t understand what chapter 7 has to do with this situation at all.
Yes, it would be good if there was another TD there who could make rulings regarding the TDs game, but at many clubs there is only one TD, and if he didn’t play there would be no club at all. Since you can always appeal the TDs ruling, in a small, club event it is not such a big deal, IMO.
If he stomped out of the room and took his score sheet, the best guess is he abandoned the game. However, if he left his pen and score sheet and even his set, you should assume otherwise.
If the TD is the only one there, he may also be the owner of the Affiliate and have additional responsibilities to USCF.
Chapter 7.4. - All players have the right to expect: That any special rules pertinent to that particular tournament shall be announced and/or posted. e.g. don’t go outside during play without getting permission from the TD.
20H1 - relates to a lost position, I had a winning position. I had left my set, clock, coat, etc. there. I am certain that my opponent knew exactly where I was, but maybe this is irrelevant?
There is usually another TD available. I agree that an appeal would be incorrect, however, if my opponent, the TD and I agree to adding more time to my clock, would this have been legal?
One of the biggest problems with your case occurs when you say:
In other words (if I’m reading you right), from the expression on his face, you knew what his reaction would be, so you gave up and just played on without saying anything.
In general, when you want relief of any kind, you need to ask for it when the irregularity occurs, not after the game is over.
That way, even if your opponent’s reaction is as expected, at least you’re on record as stating your objection in a timely manner. An appeal (in general) can succeed or fail based on the timeliness of the objection.
As you have presented it, here’s what happened. On a night that was cold enough that you had worn a coat to the meeting, The TD, who was also your opponent, and presumably the organizer, deliberately left you locked out of the building for a significant length of time.
If that’s really what happened, there is a bigger problem than what the 5th Edition Rules of Chess can address.
And if that’s not really what happened, there is also a bigger problem than what the 5th Edition Rules of Chess can address.
As far as resetting the clocks goes, yes that would have been legal. As presented, it’s a situation that doesn’t fall within the rules covered in the rulebook. If situations arise that aren’t covered, the TD is empowered to use his judgment and make a ruling that is in the spirit of the rules.
A few questions come to mind for me, about this situation:
Was this a chess club event? I do believe it was seeing that there was one round per evening, weekly.
Was the TD also the person of one of the persons that run the chess club? If this was a relatively small club then we get to a point of humanity and club behavior, not necessarily tournament play and behavior. I assume this was not a very big club, otherwise the TD would most likely not be also playing.
Was there only one entrance to the building? And how far away from the door was the playing area?
Was there any discussion with the TD or other participants about the situation, either during the game of after?
If this is a small club and the area was quite private, I would wonder about the humanity of the player/TD in not wondering what happened to his opponent, at least around the 20 - 30 minute time of absence. We have rated events at our club and we also have been in a place where a door could have been accidentally locked as this appears to be. I know that any one of us in the club would begin to wonder and worry about someone that was absent for this long, especially when his stuff was still there.
I know that there are also usually more than one entrance and even a window that one can tap on, sometimes.
With that though, we have had guys in our club that were smokers and we wouldn’t be too surprised if they took off like that for a period of time.
There are also two sides to pretty much every story. I would like to hear what this player/TD has to say about what happened.
Bill Smythe is also right in that a complaint should have been filed right away, even before resuming play. This complaint could have and most likely would have been on a few different levels. The basic club or humanity level would be the first I would address. I would say to the guy running things, that this really “inhaled wind” and that I was locked out of the place for upwards of 45 minutes.
The next level would be about the game and the time elapsed. I would certainly ask for a little more time added to my clock for the, ahem, inconvenience of being locked out.
Also, people need to learn that just looking at a person doesn’t mean they shouldn’t complain, especially when that person is the TD or club official. In fact, a complaint should have been lodged anyway. That’s no way to have a club or tournament operate.
Without hearing both sides of the story, I agree that it looks bad on the TD/player. This is why I would like to hear,…the rest of the story.
For example, if this had happened when I was involved at the club at a community college, one would never know that anyone was locked outside. The playing room was far from any entrance/exit doors where one might go to smoke.
Additionally, was this the first time this person played at this club? If not, one can see why the director might assume that the player was aware of the situation and wouldn’t go looking for him. And - if a situation like that described above - the director might not be able to easily go looking for one lost player - because they would be leaving the tournament room with no other director available.
And, if this was for a smoke - certainly any smoker should know (and I am a LONG reformed one - but I would still know) to check the door to see if I am going to be locked out.
Just curious. When and where did this tournament and the alleged incident take place? Was it at the West Chester CC? I see by the complainant’s MSA that he has played mostly there. But I do not see evidence that he has played and lost any rated games to any of the listed TDs, at least not this year. There do seem to be some irregularities in sending in matches for rating along with the tournaments. The differences in rating between the players seem substantial. Were these supposed to be an “Extra Games” section rather than a match?
There’s no other rulebook which applies to chess and reversing the decision, which is certainly what the OP and you are talking about - not arguing that point.
There may have been lots of other rulebooks with application to the venue. I’m thinking things like city codes requiring places of business to have open doors during occupied/business hours, ADA national/state codes which might require the location to have ready access for the disabled, etc. Some of those codes in some states may - repeat may - fall equally on the organizer and the venue. For all its thickness, the rulebook would be a thin reed to lean on if somebody froze to death due to not being able to get back indoors.
Perhaps directors should be exempt from the no cell phone rule to circumvent situations like this in the future. It’s sort of hard to believe that no one exited a tournament site for 45 minutes but since I wasn’t there I’ll accept this at face value. Why continue the game at all under such conditions if the plan was to protest the result? This whole incident should be one to grow on.