One point seems large enough to make it worthy of Forum discussion: As I read the document, Steve Immit’s “minor variation” that allows a late-arriving player to substitute a delay/increment-capable clock in place of a ticking analog is subsumed into the main body of Rule 42D.
IOW, from the way it reads, it looks as though the ‘minor variation’ is not a variation at all, but is actually part of the main rule. (I am pretty sure it was numbered 42D1 or 42Da. Right?)
Please note that the “Upcoming Rules Changes” doc, posted one day after “Rulebook Changes 2012” also contains the same confusing text.
Anyone see anything else? These gents did a very good job on this doc overall; we can help them hone it to perfection…
42D (clock substitution variant) is posted exactly like the Delegates passed it. There is a double entry on the explanation of 42D in the 2012 changes section. The second entry is correct. The first entry is a draft and I humbly ask you forgiveness for accidentally including it. That double entry will be corrected for the 1-1-12 posting.
We are bound by what the delegates passed, exactly as they passed it.
IMHO, one of the things that the sponsors of delegate motions need think about when presenting these kinds of rules changes is to include a review/edit of the format by the rules committee before it gets published. That could have wording like: “…referred to the Rules Committee with power to edit by …” They can easily word such statements to limit the power of the committee to just editing chores.
In this case that would have allow the Rules Committee to format 42D and the 42D Variation for the sake of clarity.
Often the delegates pass a rule that has an impact on the references made to it in other rules, either in content or nomenclature; however, the motion that gets passed does not mention changing those references. One of the 6th edition editing tasks will be to correct as many of those kinds of things as possible.
When I was speaking to the motion when it came up on the floor, I started off by saying that I was requesting that this ADM be modified to make this proposal a minor variation to Rule 42D (it’s probably still on the videotape). I’m sure that that is the way it was voted on.
Unfortunately what was said at the mike is not the wording of the motion; further, the motion as written already incorporated the wording of 42D with the added new variant language. To any reader it appears that is what is reflected in what was said at the mike. What were the delegates to think? The delegates can only vote on the wording that they see. While the speaker at the mike can influence the delegates and state their intentions (often conflicting), all the delegates can do is vote on the wording before them on the screen and in their booklets.
Sigh, we will try to find a way to fix this and still comply with the requirements set forth by the wording the delegates passed.
This wording would give the rules committee way too much wiggle room.
Remember, this version of 42D never made it through the rules committee to begin with. The delegates had to take matters into their own hands.
Better would be (at the end of the motion): “The rules committee may edit the wording of this rule for style or clarity, without changing the intent of the motion.”
This would mean that the motion (and the new version of the rule) would go into effect on the stated date, 1-1-2012, even if the rules committee had not yet acted on any “style or clarity” changes by that date. In other words, the committee would not be able to stall implementation through inaction.
In the case of the specific issue of whether this clock substitution thing was to be a minor variation or part of the main-line rule, frankly, I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference.
And now, additionally, there is apparently a disagreement as to which way it was stated in the motion that passed.
Just let it stand as part of the main-line rule, if that’s more convenient. It was intended as a minor variation, anyway, not requiring advance notice. Any TD who does not want to allow such a clock substitution can have it his way – as a minor variation, not requiring advance notice. Big deal.
Copied below is the text of the motion from the unofficial summary of the Delegates Meeting. It is clear that what is proposed—and what the delegates approved—is meant to be a variation, not the main rule.
Perhaps the issue is that the motion does not stipulate “This is to be 42D1” or words to that effect. The words “minor variation” are right there at the top of the motion. See below:
DM 11-41 (Steve Immitt, NY) Right Of All Players To Furnish And Use Time-Delay Clocks
The Delegates approve adding to Rule 42-D the following minor variation:
“A properly set clock with time delay or increment capability is preferable to any other clock in a game with any sudden death time control. Therefore, if White has such a clock available and Black does not, White’s clock should be used. If either player arrives late for the start of the game, and a clock without time delay or increment has already been started, the player has the right to furnish and substitute a properly set time-delay or increment clock, prior to the determination of Black’s first move. The player substituting the time-delay or increment clock must also transfer the elapsed times shown on the non-delay clock to the delay or increment clock, without any additional adjustments (except to correct any errors in the display of the elapsed time). The player substituting the delay or increment clock must have arrived at the board before the grace period for forfeit loss of the game by non-appearance (13-D) has expired. Notwithstanding the above, the only occasions where Black retains the right to use his/her non-time-delay clock are in games with no sudden death time control, in cases where both players have the same type of non-time-delay clock, or if the delay mode were not being used in a sudden death time control game, and if, in all these cases, Black has arrived in time for the start of the game (or if White is late, before White has arrived). In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay or increment clock may choose which legal clock is to be used (5F).
EXPLANATION: There are many situations where players may be unavoidably delayed from arriving before the start of the round, through no fault of their own. Not everyone who arrives late for the game does so out of negligence. New USCF Rule 14H6 (“No Claim of Insufficient Losing Chances In Sudden Death”) allows the individual TD to opt to disallow any draw claims by Insufficient Losing Chances, and such a variation is not required to be announced in the advance publicity.
It would be very unfair and against the basic principles of USCF-rated Sudden Death if a late-arriving player were not only denied the current relief of Rule 14H against an opponent playing out a drawn or lost position solely to win on time, but also denied the opportunity to use a time-delay or increment clock at all. The player, the rest of the players in the room, and the TD would then all be forced to endure the spectacle of the game, which might otherwise be decided over the board using time-delay, instead degenerating into a duel of “clock-punching monkeys.” To ensure that the position in the game does not influence whether or not the delay clock is used, the substitution must occur before the player furnishing the time-delay clock has completed his first move. PASSED
The delegates approved 42D. Not 42Da or anything numbered anything else. We are stuck with that. The delegates approved this wording. We are stuck with that. If you can find where it says in the by-laws that we can print what we “think” the delegates meant instead of what was printed and passed then please post it.
Now, how can you attach 42D to the end of 42D? That is the dilemma.
Before the 1-1-12 posting I will work on seeing if we can abide by the approved words but still make it clear what those words mean.
A properly set clock with time delay or increment capability is preferable to any other clock in a game with any sudden death time control. Therefore, if White has such a clock available and Black does not, White’s clock should be used. If either player arrives late for the start of the game, and a clock without time delay or increment has already been started, the player has the right to furnish and substitute a properly set time-delay or increment clock, prior to the determination of Black’s first move. The player substituting the time-delay or increment clock must also transfer the elapsed times shown on the non-delay clock to the delay or increment clock, without any additional adjustments (except to correct any errors in the display of the elapsed time). The player substituting the delay or increment clock must have arrived at the board before the grace period for forfeit loss of the game by non-appearance (13-D) has expired. Notwithstanding the above, the only occasions where Black retains the right to use his/her non-time-delay clock are in games with no sudden death time control, in cases where both players have the same type of non-time-delay clock, or if the delay mode were not being used in a sudden death time control game, and if, in all these cases, Black has arrived in time for the start of the game (or if White is late, before White has arrived). In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay or increment clock may choose which legal clock is to be used (5F).
TD TIP: The bold faced portion of this rule is interpreted as an unannounced variation. Players, TDs, and organizers would be well advised to treat it that way.
For the TD tip, would it be better to state or add that “the substitution of the delay/increment capable clock has been a standard practice.” This would emphasize the desirability of doing this as a norm rather than still leaving wiggle room as a variation.
We have only had one dispute over the use of delay clock rather than an analog clock in our League when White came late and wanted to use his clock. I pointed out to Black, who had a Jerger clock, that the delay clock was not only preferred but mandatory, if available. At the beginning of each round, I outline clock rules for digital and analog clocks because we often have new players being added. It has been our standard practice to always substitute in the delay clock when a player is late.
Now I get it. This is the one rule that gave you and David Kuhns special trouble, as noted by System Admin some time ago.
I appreciate how much care you take adhering to Bylaws, but as noted the words “minor variation” are at the top of the motion passed by the Delegates. To me, that (by far) trumps the unwitting omission of adding a lower-case letter to the text, i.e. “This shall be noted as 42Da.” I am somewhat of a stickler for the letter of the rules, based on 30+ years of hanging with chess lawyers, but this is a case where doing so clearly defeats the intent of the Delegates and the maker of the motion. (As he himself noted here.)
If you want to make it official, why not take your troubles to the EB and ask for a friendly motion of clarification at the next EB meeting. “We move that the minor variation to rule 42D, as adopted by the Delegates in August 2011 and to take effect on Jan. 1, 2012, shall be numbered 42Da and so listed in the Rules Changes document and subsequent Rulebooks, unless changed by the Delegates.”
If the Delegates do not approve of that procedural fine-tuning—almost inconceivable—they can change it in 2012 to take effect in 2013. That is far better than wording an intended variation—passed by the Delegates as a variation—as the main rule, just because the micro-parsing of Fed regs seems to so indicate.
It’s not like you are messing with election rules—or even allowable time controls—by fiat here…
Putting in duplicate verbiage on all rules where it is relevant would reduce the number of rules cross-references that need to be done, but the cost is that the rulebook gets larger and all duplications need to be updated together on changes.
On what basis did you tell Black the use of a delay-digital clock was “mandatory” in this case? If he arrived on time, set up his Jerger, properly set, started White’s clock at the scheduled time—or after a verbal announcement from the TD—as far as I know the game continues with the Jerger.
To be clear, I support Steve’s motion and am glad the Delegates adopted it. (I loved my own Jerger clock in the '80s and '90s—but bought a Chronos in 1999 or so and never looked back, sentiment aside.) But the rules in force now—until 1/1/12—state that if a game begins with a properly set analog set up by a prompt player, with the opponent tardy, that clock stays in use for the rest of the game…barring a clock substitution for an ILC claim.
“It has been our standard practice to always substitute in the delay clock when a player is late” does not cut it, frankly, unless that policy has been posted, announced, listed in all advertising and so on.
I agree with that policy—but there is no basis for it in the rules until next year.
Unless you have an announced variation for your league, you are quite incorrect that “the delay clock was not only preferred but mandatory.” A player who is late forfeits the right to demand a delay capable clock under the current rules.
It seems entirely possible (of course I don’t know for sure) that Tmagchesspgh’s league has, indeed, had that policy in effect for some time, with proper notice given.
In my area, this organizer has, for at least a year, included the following statement in each tournament announcement:
“Digital clocks are required and will be set to G/xx plus 5 seconds delay.”
The Pittsburgh Chess League was established in 1960 by a small group of dedicated players and tournament directors. It has been USCF rated from its inception. We have been ahead of the curve on the use of technology and rules for our League for some time. Our League was ahead of the USCF in computerizing results and using databases in the very early '80’s at the dawn of personal computers. When we sent a data disk we had to send a paper copy because the USCF was not yet ready to deal with a number of data issues. We have discussed and implemented rules that are now standards. Unlike some areas, we are, how shall I say it delicately, less idiotic (OK, so I can’t always be diplomatic) in restrictions and penalties on cell phone use, since we have a number of doctors and first responders in our League. Reasonable accomodations were designed rather than onerous penalties. We also dealt with the issues of delay clocks early on and decided that if a delay clock was available, even if a player was late, it was to be used. This was a practical matter as we had a limit on the time use of the facility at a university. I can count on the fingers of one hand disputes relating to clocks or USCF rules in our League since 1981. Our directors, officers, and team captains in that time have worked diligently to maintain the highest standards of play.