I agree as to the original intent. Did the sponsor somewhere say that he wasn’t open to a broader discussion?
The logical reason is to retain the rule that says players must point out a flag fall.
And this ain’t other sports.
That assumes that the flagged player made his move the moment 110.5 minutes were used and did not spend another 10 minutes thinking before moving.
Yes and no.
Beeping may not be the greatest idea in the world, partly because it may disrupt other games, and partly because it draws the attention of the player even if he is not looking at the clock.
A red light may not be so great either, because the player not watching the clock may still see the light out of the corner of his eye.
But a flag icon directly on the screen, I think, is just fine.
I think what is supposed to happen in this case (I’m not sure what the DGT clocks do) is that, if the first time period expires (based on time, not on move count), the flag icon should appear, and should remain on for a while (perhaps five minutes at least). Then if the other player’s time also expires, that player’s flag icon should not appear.
That way, it can be determined (if necessary) whose time expired first. If it is found that over 40 moves have been played, then no time forfeit has occurred, and the game can continue (the clock is still running).
Well, maybe, but in this case the off-topic is close enough to the original topic that I don’t see a big problem. I’d prefer that the thread not be split.
Bill Smythe
Moderation aspect is not my concern. I feel the discussion of substantial changes here is unhelpful, because it’s like being given free chicken to try and asked to comment on the taste, and then turning around and saying you prefer beef steak. No delegates gave us beef steak. It’s a matter of courtesy to someone who gave us free chicken.
Anyway, I hope I’ve made my point clear now. I don’t want to come any closer to the precipice of second-guessing Ken.
I’m sorry you feel that way! 
I guess we’ll both have to leave it to the moderators whether to split this thread into two. Both the original topic and the “hijacked” topic are certainly worthy of discussion. So far, though, the majority (of posters) appears to have found the second topic more interesting than the original. If the thread were split, I think there would be only about 4 posts left in the original – but splitting would, as you are perhaps hinting at, give the original a little more privacy, so that the original discussion could continue without being bulldozed by the second.
Bill Smythe
As the original poster who started this thread, I don’t mind the evolution of the discussion, and I would have no objection to the larger discussion of whether the current rule is the way things should be done.
It is true that I object to allowing clocks to be set to “halt at end.” However, my objection is not based on the argument that “the clock halting at end provides assistance to the player by calling the flag.” In that sense, the clock is impartial and unbiased.
My problem with “halt on end” is that it can lead to ugly situations for the TD to sort out. The combination of clock press counters and halt on end can easily lead to a mess with multiple time controls. It’s a treat as a TD to deal with a clock that has halted because the players have forgotten to press the clock somewhere in the time control, so the clock “knows” that one player has not completed the required number of moves before using up all his time and therefore stops running. (I fully anticipate the vocal reaction that “move counters are perfectly fine and it’s the player’s fault for not pressing the clock correctly.” Raise that objection if you must, but I don’t accept it. I’ve never been in the utopian situation where players always remember to press the clock after every move, never make an illegal move, never displace pieces (so that the opponent presses the clock without moving to cause the player to restore the position on his own time), or never respond so quickly with a recapture that the opponent hasn’t even pressed his clock after the original capture. I’d very much like to know where this nirvana exists so I can go there and direct.)
Problems with “halt at end” aren’t restricted to multiple time controls, either. There was a case discussed in the forum some time ago (before the current rule 16B2b was established) where two players were playing a game with a single time control in the last round of a tournament. One player ran out of time. The players just agreed to ignore the clock and continue playing out the game. The outcome of this game affected the prize distribution, so other players were waiting for this game to finish. The TD believed he could do nothing about the situation, as only the players can call a fallen flag. Because the clock was set to halt at end, the opponent’s flag would never fall, so rule 14G (game drawn because both flags have fallen in the last time control) was seemingly inapplicable. The game lasted almost an hour beyond the time that should have been the end of the round based on the time control. It only ended because the janitorial staff kicked everyone out of the building because it was well past closing time. (I think that in this situation, the TD would have been justified in invoking rule 14G to declare the game drawn even though the opponent’s flag had technically not fallen once it was clear that the game had gone on so long both players had used up all their time. But I can understand why a TD might feel his hands were tied in that situation.)
Again, yes, it is certainly possible to argue that clocks work as designed, “halt at end” is good, it is up to the players to use the clock correctly, and why should we not take advantage of modern technology? My answer is that the real world is not neat and tidy, messy situations occur, and as a TD I would prefer that the rules help avoid messy situations as much as possible.
I hereby retract all my previous posts in this thread 
Unless (until) alternative solutions had been created for these issues, I believe the no Halt at End is a good idea. That’s irrespective of the fact that the second situation (TD saying his hands are tied from calling the game) feels completely alien to me. It must be due to my upbringing in Russia where the laws do not get the same respect they do in the US.
What I believe in is including a variant in this rule, where Halt at End is allowed. This is primarily for club play, where the idea is to enjoy playing the game and not having to watch your opponents clock taking away from that enjoyment.
Michael Langer
Austin, TX
Even if a variant isn’t explicitly mentioned in the rules a club can adopt its own variants for its event, as long as the variants are properly posted and/or announced.
If significant portion of the USCF community prefers Halt at End variant, then it should be explicitly mentioned in the rules. If not, then why are we having this discussion about substance rather than about wording that is confusing to some of the overwhelming majority who support the substance of this rule?
Overwhelming majority?? The posts on this thread look about 50-50 to me.
Halt-at-end is obviously more of a hot-button issue among a few TDs than it is among players. Unless I miss my guess, the vast majority of tournament players don’t even know whether the clock in their game will halt at end, and don’t care. And I have never heard anybody say they would or would not play in somebody’s tournament based the clock’s halt-at-end setting, one way or the other.
Rules should not be written solely for TD convenience. What is right for the players should take priority. One thing wrong for the players is to face different rules in different parts of the world.
Players who refuse to call their opponent’s flag down can be a big problem, with or without halt-at-end. What is needed in this case is explicitly permitted TD intervention, not a change in clock setting.
Just as a TD is explicitly allowed to declare a draw after a 5-fold repetition (the players can claim after 3), or after 75 no-progress moves (the players can claim after 50), the TD should also be explicitly allowed to call a flag down after, say, 2 minutes (on the wall clock).
The TDs are there for the players, not the other way around.
Bill Smythe
I have no strong feelings on whether clocks should or shouldn’t be designed, in the event of both flags falling, to indicate whose flag fell first. But I don’t believe that a clock should pause on both sides when a flag falls on one side, for the reason Ken gave. Why create a new rule just to deal with a situation that would automatically resolve itself (under Rule 14G2) if the clocks did not both stop?
Bob
The situation will not always resolve itself even if the clocks do not stop. For example, what if the non-flagging player still has 45 minutes remaining, but refuses to call his opponent’s flag? That’s a situation where it would be wise to allow a TD to call the flag after a reasonable time, such as 2 minutes.
Bill Smythe
The terminology is a contributing problem.
In: 40moves/90minutes +5seconds delay, SuddenDeath/30minutes +5second delay …
A. What is the exact correct name or term for the whole thing (that is bold immediately above)?
Personally I call it the “time control” of the game.
B. What is the exact correct name or term for just the first half of the thing, the half that involves the first 40moves in this example?
Personally I call it the first “segment” of the “time control”. This particular example time control has two segments.
The Halt-At-End feature (which freezes both clocks), probably also to include a Beep, is desirable — but only for the final “segment”.
We could make the clock relative more intrusive or burdensome by demanding the Halt-At-End feature be Disable/Off. But it is better to let the clock relieve us of doubt and the burden to monitor so closely in cases where both players have only a few seconds remaining in the final SuddenDeath segment.
ONE FINAL PRESS OR PAUSE
Despite the consensus in these forums that disagreed with me months ago, I still believe that the player whose move has just achieved mate should have to either…
(a) press his clock-button one last time just like after any other move, or
(b) pause the entire clock.
Either of these actions prove he made his mate before before his final second ticked away (in the final SuddenDeath segment).
.
I dunno. But I’d like to write it in a more compact way.
Since, in your example, the delay is the same in both segments, you could write it
40/90 SD/30, d5
or
40/90 SD/30; d5
or
40/90, SD/30; d5
By using a stronger separator between the main time and the delay than between the two halves of the main time, you are making it clear that “d5” applies to both segments. A semicolon is a stronger separator than a comma, and a comma is a stronger separator than a space.
Of the above three, I prefer either the first or second over the third. I don’t care for excessive punctuation, and the difference between a comma and a semicolon might be regarded as too subtle for some.
Now if the two segments had different delays, you would have to write:
40/90 d0, SD/30 d5
or
40/90 d0; SD/30 d5
or
40/90, d0; SD/30, d5
Again, I think the third one is the least desirable.
I agree, except for the beep. I would prefer not to have a flashing light, either. A display of a flag, on the LCD screen itself, is best.
I also agree that it would be better if the clock continued to run at the end of the non-SD control – even if the clock’s move counter is turned on. And the flag should remain displayed for at least 5 minutes, but only on the side of the player whose time expired first. If the second player then also runs out of time, there should be no flag display on that side, but the first player’s flag should continue to be displayed.
That way, the TD can easily determine, after the fact, who expired first, in case that’s relevant in any particular case. If both players are by now beyond move 40, then, of course, the game can continue, even with one flag still displayed.
Bill Smythe