Dr. Sloan:
“Variations” are one way a TD handles a situation. “Interpretations” have little if any flexibility, (unless you are an NTD, as you pointed out in another thread).
All the best, Joe Lux, NTD
My policy for my events, standard to the last couple of pages to this thread:
Intervention only upon request.
Encourage new players to ask for mate confirmations before play begins.
Answer the “is this mate?” with yes or no.
If the position is stalemate, I have them clarify the question before answering. “Are you asking me, is this checkmate?”, etc.
To inject some new material into the thread, after saying: “no, this is not checkmate,” I frequently get the subsequent question/statement: “I don’t know what to do/move.” Here, I tell the player that he/she has to look for a legal move for the game to continue, I usually encourage the player by pointing out there is plenty of time to find it, but that after a long think if he/she still can’t find and play a legal move after looking, he/she will have to resign. Almost invariably, the opponent, after learning that it was not mate, figures out a legal reply and tells the player a legal move and the game continues without me having to have intervened further. (Not that you should listen to your opponent…, but that’s a different topic.) If the game ends with the confused player resigning in a position that I told him/her was definitely not checkmate, I then record the result as final but point out the legal move(s) or stalemate if directing duties permit.
How do others treat that case?
First - in my opinion, if you answer the “is this checkmate?” question, then you have been invited by the player to inspect the position, and you have actually studied the position. In that case, I think that you have given up the option of “not noticing” things like stalemate, or illegal positions. If the position is, in fact, stalemate, then you should say so. If the position is, in fact, an illegal position, then you should start the process of backing up to the last legal position (or, at least, a position that both players agree upon from which play can continue).
The main reason for not initiating study of the position (for illegal moves/positions, mates) is that you
can’t see them all and do not want your rulings to be (or have the appearance of being) biased. But, once a player makes a claim, or asks a question (that you decide to answer!) then you have not initiated the study of the position. Once having looked at the position, I think you have to make all rulings that come out of that study.
As for the player who says “I don’t know what to do”, I usually say that the options are:
a) make a legal move
b) offer a draw (I know - out of sequence, but…)
c) resign
d) study the position until their time expires
There are special procedures for handling VERY young players who are clearly not having a good time - the rules do not require the TD to make players weep.
If there is no clock on the board, then this board becomes a high priority for the next available clock.
ONLY if this is a “teaching opportunity” event would I even consider leading the player through a series of hints designed to help them find a legal move. Even in the case of very, very young players - at a serious event the most I will do is try to lead them to the conclusion that they should probably resign, and that resignation is an honorable way to end the game.
“How do I get out of here?” - 4yo girl at the Phoenix National Elementary.
LOL, I’ve felt that way many times!! 
Everything else looks fine, Ben, but I don’t know about forcing a resignation in a non-mated postion. Place a clock on them immediately, if possible, and let the flag decide.
Request to clarify this whole situation has been sent to the Rules Committee Chair.
Hopefully, this will help us determine if the intent or consequence of the rule is that a TD has the right to declare a checkmated game over, and in what instances.
Again, I would point to cases where individuals continue to play on, unaware, in TD witnessed checkmate positions. I still haven’t seen concrete opinion as to whether or not a score should be adjusted for such an occurence.
The way I handle it, even in a large event with few TDs, is when it is spotted, TD should intervene. The TD can be consistent here, as long as he/she rules the same way in every similar situation.
Do we agree that 11H is the main rule, and that 11H1 is a variation that should be announced (otherwise, players should expect TDs to point out illegal moves)? This could be modified to say that TDs will point out illegal moves only when a position is immediately ended by checkmate or stalemate, and that other illegal moves require a claim.
BTW: my policy has always been to answer “YES” “NO” to the “is this checkmate/stalemate” question.
Yes and No.
Yes 11H is the main rule. Yes 11H1 is a variation. No, you don’t have to announce you are using that variation. I don’t believe it is significant enough to deter people from events. Most people that play regularly in your events will know how you regularly react.
Now, if you have an event where there are a number of people that don’t usually attend your events in attendance, it might be nice to have a flyer or other way of showing which approved variations you may be using in case it matters to someone.
More TD’s that I know use the variation in most of their events than the main rule. Simply because of numbers.
Then may I point out Rules 1B1 and 26A, which specify that variations, including those in the rulebook, need to be posted at the event. According to this, EVERY variation from a standard (or, main) rule, should be posted. 
Note, that I’m not speaking of notice in pre-publicity, which wouldn’t be required, except as pertains to Major variations.
I’m not forcing anything here. In fact, I’m done with the board unless a hand goes back up. The opponent, most likely, won’t let the player play an illegal move, so logically the player either has to play a legal move, resign, or lose on time. No matter which is chosen, no skin off my back. More often than not from my observation, the opponent, who is simply bored, just tells the player a legal move (many times there is only one). If there is no clock on the board and the player looks ready to start a sit-and-stare-fest, that board will get one soon, but I would probably wait at least five minutes before doing that, since from my experience, the player usually chooses to resign.
The way I do it in my own events is as follows: if a player claims a checkmate, I ask the opponent if he/she agrees. If the opponent says yes, the game is over. If he/she disagrees, then I tell both players that the opponent will be allowed to look for a way out. If it’s really mate, within a minute the loser will agree and the game is over. If it’s not, the game continues.
There are a couple of things that bother me. I don’t like to see someone win by claiming mate when it isn’t, but this is offset by a player not being good enough to see a way out. I don’t think the playing ability of a TD should be a factor in the result.
The other occurrence that bothers me is the player that claims mate and starts to reset the pieces before the opponent is satisfied with the claim. While mate ends the game, I see little harm in allowing the opponent time to verify the claim. It won’t change the result if correct. If the claim is incorrect, the opportunity to verify is denied.
At least one organizer I work for, mentions calling your own mates in the pre-tournament announcements at his scholastic events. The announcement also includes a warning that once the players agree on a result, it will most likely be too late to correct it later if it’s discovered that it wasn’t mate.
I once saw a kid declare a checkmate in a stalemated position. I intervened and declared the stalemate. I asked the kid why he claimed a checkmate when I knew 100% that he knew it was a stalemate.
He told me that his coach told the whole team to always claim a checkmate in a stalemated position as they would get a few extra points that way if the other kid was confused.
Checkmate ends the game; Stalemate ends the game.
Edit: Spelling
And I believe you were correct in doing so.
NOW, this brings up an interesting question. In the event that the TD wishes to send a signal, and punish unsportsmanlike conduct, what are the TD’s legal and/or reasonable options? What would you do?
- Forfeit this game to the opponent for prize purposes, but not for rating.
- Remove the player from the tournament.
- Remove all team members from the tournament.
- Allow the result to stand, but give a stern warning to both coach and team members.
I think 1-3 is too harsh, especially since the player was honest in admitting why he did it. He could have said, “I really thought it was checkmate.”
I would be inclined to go with #4, and keep an eye on what the kids from that team do in subsequent rounds and tournaments. It disgusts me that a coach would encourage such behavior, and I’d come down especially hard on the coach. I’d make it very clear to the coach that if he continues to encourage that type of behavior from his players, that he and his team would not be welcome at future tournaments.
Am I missing something, or is there a gap in the rulebook regarding the calling of illegal moves?
Rule 11D1 says that “A director should not call attention to illegal moves in sudden death time pressure.”
Rule 11H talks about a director correcting illegal moves “in non-sudden death” (with the variation explained in rule 11H1).
But I don’t see anyplace that it addresses what should be done in sudden-death when the players are not under time pressure. I’d guess that the same procedure should be used as that outlined in rule 11H, but the rulebook doesn’t seem to say.
Perhaps a small gap exist, but you can get to the correct answer thru both of the rules you cite.
While 11H Covers all non sudden death time controls, as with all rules, barring specific mention of an exception, it should also be applied to sudden death as well. The only mention of a TD calling illegal moves in sudden death is 11D1. 11D1 only clarifies that a TD should not call illegal moves during sudden death time trouble. With regard to non time trouble, it does not contradict 11H, therefore by deductive inference, a TD can call illegal moves during a sudden death time control. Just not during the last five minutes of the game.
To simplify my copy of the rulebook, I shortened the title to 11H to " Director corrects illegal move".
For those who are still not convinced…
How does 18G relate to this discussion?
you’re kidding, right?
Nope