# Rule 5B2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [April 24, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087 "2014-04-24T20:58:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nolan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/nolan/32/174_2.png) [@nolan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/nolan)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/21 "2014-04-26T15:48:28Z")
Organizers who don’t like that rule may use their own clock preference rules, but those will need to be part of advance publicity. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/22 "2014-04-26T16:11:55Z")
> [@BobMessenger](#): > > … Given my proposed revision to 5B2 and my interpretation of it, specifying the time control in the TLA isn’t/wouldn’t be required by the rulebook. … If you are talking about a TLA in Chess Life or on the USCF website, I would think specifying the time control would be mandatory, if only to identify the event as regular, dual, quick, or blitz. Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![nolan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/nolan/32/174_2.png) [@nolan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/nolan)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/23 "2014-04-26T16:48:02Z")
If that’s what the Delegates want, then the rule should be worded to say that. Otherwise, the office interpretation of a revised 5B2 rule may or may not reflect the Delegates’ true intent. ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/24 "2014-04-28T14:48:54Z")
> [@nolan](#): > > If that’s what the Delegates want, then the rule should be worded to say that. Otherwise, the office interpretation of a revised 5B2 rule may or may not reflect the Delegates’ true intent. B2 or not B2 - is that the question? ---
**Author:** ![nolan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/nolan/32/174_2.png) [@nolan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/nolan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/25 "2014-04-28T15:17:06Z")
Such comments should be Bard. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/26 "2014-04-28T18:30:39Z")
> [@nolan](#): > > Such comments should be Bard. That might result in a Tempest. ---
**Author:** ![tmagchesspgh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@tmagchesspgh](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tmagchesspgh)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 7:12am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/27 "2014-04-29T07:12:46Z")
I remember one tournament where the TD announced that there would be no delay. The flyers did not indicate one way or the other as far as delay. He said we had to be finished by a certain time because the use of the building was limited. The players revolted and demanded to have delay for their games as the time control was only Game 60. It was pointed out that he had not indicated no delay in his advertising or the TLA. He was also asked if he really wanted to make insufficient losing chances calls, given his rating. He relented after a couple of players with TD experience indicated he was not following best practice, as well as creating ill will for his future tournaments. We still finished the last round 45 minutes ahead of the building use limitation. ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/28 "2014-04-29T22:02:34Z")
Here is my modified ADM: > [@](#): > > Move to amend rule 5B2 by replacing the current rule with the following: > > 5B2. In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment, as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss), e.g. G/90 inc 30 (or +30); G/30 d5; G/10 d3; G/5 d0. The time control must be specified in Tournament Life Announcements and should be specified in other publicity such as flyer mailings, email and on web sites. It is acceptable for abbreviated publicity to refer the reader to more complete tournament details posted elsewhere. > > RATIONALE: > > The current version of rule 5B2 is: > > 5B2. The organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment in all advance publicity as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss). e.g. G/90 inc/30 (or +30); G/30 d/5; G/10 d/3; G/5 d/0. > > This could be interpreted as requiring the time control, or possibly multiple time controls, to be indicated in all advance publicity, including, for example, a list of tournaments being run by an organization or a small display ad with abbreviated details. The proposed amendment clarifies that abbreviated tournament details don’t need to include the time control if the information is posted elsewhere. > > The notation d/5 etc. used in the current rule has in practice been replaced by d5 etc. Another ADM will propose using the notation without a slash throughout the rules. ---
**Author:** ![nolan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/nolan/32/174_2.png) [@nolan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/nolan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/29 "2014-04-29T23:02:01Z")
It would be clearer if it read: In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control… ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/30 "2014-04-29T23:05:31Z")
> [@nolan](#): > > It would be clearer if it read: > > In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control… O.K., I’ll make that change. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/31 "2014-04-30T06:20:13Z")
> [@nolan](#): > > It would be clearer if it read: > > In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control… I agree, but in addition, it should be made even more clear than it already is, that the lack of a delay or increment must also be explicit. And there could be an example: ‘For example, if the control is G/30 with no delay or increment, the specification should read “G/30 d/0”.’ Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/32 "2014-04-30T13:37:45Z")
> [@BobMessenger](#): > > Here is my modified ADM: > > > [@](#): > > > > Move to amend rule 5B2 by replacing the current rule with the following: > > > > 5B2. In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment, as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss), e.g. G/90 inc 30 (or +30); G/30 d5; G/10 d3; G/5 d0. The time control must be specified in Tournament Life Announcements and should be specified in other publicity such as flyer mailings, email and on web sites. It is acceptable for abbreviated publicity to refer the reader to more complete tournament details posted elsewhere. > > > > RATIONALE: > > > > The current version of rule 5B2 is: > > > > 5B2. The organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment in all advance publicity as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss). e.g. G/90 inc/30 (or +30); G/30 d/5; G/10 d/3; G/5 d/0. > > > > This could be interpreted as requiring the time control, or possibly multiple time controls, to be indicated in all advance publicity, including, for example, a list of tournaments being run by an organization or a small display ad with abbreviated details. The proposed amendment clarifies that abbreviated tournament details don’t need to include the time control if the information is posted elsewhere. > > > > The notation d/5 etc. used in the current rule has in practice been replaced by d5 etc. Another ADM will propose using the notation without a slash throughout the rules. In addition to Mike’s comment, I’m in favor of trying to standardize symbols. So if Game is G, and delay is d, then increment should be i, not + or inc. With respect to Mike’s comment - is it the “indicate the full time control” or is it “fully indicate the time control”? Also, didn’t go back and look at the rules above this subsection, but consider a lead-in paragraph, something along the line of the below. Adopt upper/lower case in the symbols as you see fit - I’m just trying to standardize more. > [@](#): > > All time controls consist of a specified number of Moves (M) made in an (initial) Base (B) time and either an Increment (I) or Delay (D) time (t) per move. Increment is an amount of time added per completed move, delay is the amount of time allowed per move before time is used from the Base time. Increment or Delay times may be 0. If the number of moves is for the entire Game this is indicated by G for the number of moves. > > Time controls are indicated as M/B, D/t or M/B, I/t. Examples: G/90, I/30; G/30, D/5. Then go into your definition; we have now defined that all time controls have either increment or delay (which may be 0), so fully disclosing the time control should be clear. P.S. Didn’t see your other thread on notation when I posted the above, so I will keep this brief. Agree with standardization, think I prefer letters rather than + or - which already have other chess symbol meanings. ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/33 "2014-04-30T19:19:34Z")
> [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > > [@nolan](#): > > > > It would be clearer if it read: > > > > In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control… > > I agree, but in addition, it should be made even more clear than it already is, that the lack of a delay or increment must also be explicit. And there could be an example: ‘For example, if the control is G/30 with no delay or increment, the specification should read “G/30 d/0”.’ > > Bill Smythe Rule 5B1c (with my proposed notation) says: > [@](#): > > 5B1c. If no delay or increment is to be used then d0 indicates no delay or increment time. Rule 5B2 (again with my proposed notation) gives as one of its examples “G/5 d0”. I think that’s enough. ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/34 "2014-04-30T20:12:29Z")
Here is the ADM as I’ve submitted it. I added another example: 40/120, SD/60 d5, to show how delay is indicated in a time control with two periods. > [@](#): > > Move to amend rule 5B2 by replacing the current rule with the following: > > 5B2. In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control, including the delay or increment, as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss), e.g. 40/120, SD/60 d5; G/90 inc 30 (or +30); G/30 d5; G/10 d3; G/5 d0. The time control must be specified in Tournament Life Announcements and should be specified in other publicity such as flyer mailings, email and on web sites. It is acceptable for abbreviated publicity to refer the reader to more complete tournament details posted elsewhere. > > RATIONALE: > > The current version of rule 5B2 is: > > 5B2. The organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment in all advance publicity as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss). e.g. G/90 inc/30 (or +30); G/30 d/5; G/10 d/3; G/5 d/0. > > This could be interpreted as requiring the time control, or possibly multiple time controls, to be indicated in all advance publicity, including, for example, a list of tournaments being run by an organization or a small display ad with abbreviated details. The proposed amendment clarifies that abbreviated tournament details don’t need to include the time control if the information is posted elsewhere. > > The notation d/5 etc. used in the current rule has in practice been replaced by d5 etc. Another ADM will propose using the notation without a slash throughout the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/35 "2014-04-30T23:45:12Z")
> [@BobMessenger](#): > > … I added another example: 40/120, SD/60 d5, to show how delay is indicated in a time control with two periods. … You have a strong separator (comma) between the first two controls, and a weak separator (space) between the second control and the delay. This makes it look as though the delay applies only to the second control. Much better would be 40/120 SD/60, d5, making it more obvious that the delay applies to both controls. Or maybe you did intend that the delay apply only to the second control. But then you should write 40/120 d0, SD/60 d5. Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/36 "2014-05-01T00:25:56Z")
> [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > > [@BobMessenger](#): > > > > … I added another example: 40/120, SD/60 d5, to show how delay is indicated in a time control with two periods. … > > You have a strong separator (comma) between the first two controls, and a weak separator (space) between the second control and the delay. This makes it look as though the delay applies only to the second control. > > Much better would be 40/120 SD/60, d5, making it more obvious that the delay applies to both controls. I see your logic, but as I said I’m just trying to make the rulebook conform to the de facto standard, or what appears to be the standard, in TLAs. I’m not trying to invent a new way of specifying time controls. > [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > Or maybe you did intend that the delay apply only to the second control. Perish the thought! ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/37 "2014-05-01T12:59:12Z")
> [@BobMessenger](#): > > I see your logic, but as I said I’m just trying to make the rulebook conform to the de facto standard, or what appears to be the standard, in TLAs. I’m not trying to invent a new way of specifying time controls. But if there are issues with the de facto standard, why not fix it? Perhaps another ADM as the first one to fix everything. If it passes remaining ADMs are withdrawn. If it fails, then go on to the remaining ADMs. ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/38 "2014-05-01T13:25:48Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > > [@BobMessenger](#): > > > > I see your logic, but as I said I’m just trying to make the rulebook conform to the de facto standard, or what appears to be the standard, in TLAs. I’m not trying to invent a new way of specifying time controls. > > But if there are issues with the de facto standard, why not fix it? Perhaps another ADM as the first one to fix everything. If it passes remaining ADMs are withdrawn. If it fails, then go on to the remaining ADMs. I don’t think there are serious issues with the de facto standard, just minor quibbles. ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/39 "2014-05-01T23:15:07Z")
> [@BobMessenger](#): > > … I don’t think there are serious issues with the de facto standard, just minor quibbles. If “40/120, SD/60 d5” meets the de facto standard, then as far as I’m concerned there is a serious issue with the de facto standard. I feel strongly that, assuming “d5” is intended to apply to the entire game, there should be a stronger separator between the 2nd control and the delay than there is between the 1st and 2nd controls. This makes the intent clearer. A comma is a stronger separator than a space, and a semicolon is stronger still. Thus any of the following would be acceptable: 40/120 SD/60, d5 40/120 SD/60; d5 40/120, SD/60; d5 The third of these is my least favorite, as it includes extra punctuation, but all three are preferable to “40/120, SD/60 d5”. I also feel strongly that there should be no space between “inc” and the number, or between “d” and the number. Two parts of the same element should not have a space between. A slash, though, would be good. My other strong feeling is that some readers might not know whether a plus + sign stands for delay or increment. So ditch the “+” and stick with “d” and “inc”. We should not try to fashion the rule around an existing mediocre de facto standard. Make the notation as clear and easy to understand as possible, and adopt that as both the new rule and the new de facto standard. Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![BobMessenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@BobMessenger](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BobMessenger)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087/40 "2014-05-01T23:36:27Z")
I see that I opened a can of worms by trying to amend rule 5B2. Maybe I should have just ignored the notation issue and gone with the d/5 flow. [Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rule-5b2/19087.md?page=3)