This was a case where the handshake was not accompanied by a meeting of the minds. The TD could (and probably should) have ruled that, without a meeting of the minds, the handshake was of no significance, therefore the game was still in progress and must continue.
Of course, if one player posts the result as a draw, and the other does not immediately protest to the TD, then the draw will probably stand.
Bill Smythe
Hmm. So the Master Quartz had a defect (or was rigged) so that pushing the button all the way down keeps both clocks running, yet pushing the button halfway down stops both clocks. I suppose that’s possible, but it sounds peculiar.
Bill Smythe
A couple instances, neither particularly bad compared to most of this thread. At one scholastic tournament, my opponent claimed that his father would beat him up if he lost. I believed him – then proceeded to put it out of my mind and win decisively. Later I found out he was, unsurprisingly in retrospect, lying, and felt a bit foolish for believing him.
At another tournament, I was glancing between my board and the one next to it often during my game, a bad habit for a chess player, but one that helped the player next to me. His opponent picked up a piece, then put it down and moved another when it became clear that his intended move was bad. Of course he called the touch-move violation, and the director asked for witnesses. I agreed that the claim was correct, and the director enforced it, whereupon the opponent said, “Why don’t you focus on your own stupid game?” Perhaps for the better, I was unable to come up with a snappy reply, so I did focus on my own stupid game, and won it.
I’d say it was extremely good sportsmanship on your part to help the TD nail the extremely bad sportsmanship on the part of the player next to you.
Bill Smythe
Thanks, Bill. 
After posting I did remember an incident where a player knocked over his chair in anger after losing a game. So that’s probably #1 on my list.
The worst sportsmanship I’ve ever seen came from a player who, to be fair, had some developmental issues. This player, after losing a game, went over to the pairing sheets and changed the result from 0-1 to 1-0.
OK, you might be wondering since I’ve directed over 100 tournaments, and played in more than that, how can this be the worst sportsmanship I’ve ever seen. Well, I was chief TD, and one of my assistant TDs was standing behind him when he did this. The assistant TD brought the player over to me and informed me that he had lost his game and was being removed from the tournament. At this point the player attempted to kick the assistant TD.
Alex Relyea
I once played a gentlemen who was returning to tournament play after a break of about five years. He was confused why I had my Chronos set for 1:55 instead of 2 hours. After a minute of my own confusion (he was a relatively young guy with a B class rating, I had no clue he was new at the time) I realized he didn’t understand time delay and started to explain it. He quickly cut me off with a dismissive wave and sharp comment.
I ended up with a pawn down but excellent position against him, and he got into serious time trouble. As he got down to his last two minutes he finally untangled his position, and reached a clearly better/winning endgame, where his extra pawn would queen, and then flagged.
He was under the impression that five more minutes would be added after his time ran out, and was furious he had lost. The F bomb flew and me and the TD got a lecture on what BS the situation was. At one point he chucked his chess bag across the room. (fortunately this was the final round on Saturday and we were the last game left) The TD and I both took the same approach, seeing he lost a much better position and no one was there we spoke little and waited for the temper to run its course.
After about 10 minutes of venting he finally let it go and went to leave, at that point Karma kicked it, as his thrown bag had slid far under a table, and he had to crawl underneath to get it. (this interfered with the angry storm out)
I was paired against him for the 2nd and final time a few months later. He let a winning position slip to a draw, and then when he saw the win was gone, grew angry and banged out a few moves that led to a loss. The F bomb flew again, but this time it was a single outburst and then he stormed out. I’m still sure his emotion from the first game cost him the second.
Bob
This is a reminder to me of why I don’t like USCF’s rule allowing the TD to shorten the announced time control when DELAY is used. True, your opponent has a responsibility to know the rules and his behavior was way out of line.
However, it should be reasonable to expect compliance with all pre-tournament publicity. G/120 should be game in 120 minutes, notwithstanding any allowances for any delay features. Further, shortening chess games like this almost sounds un-American (even if the United States Chess Federation advocates this rule).
Think about it. Football games are not shortened by five minutes because players move from the huddle to the scrimmage line. Baseball games are not shortened because teams travel between the field and the dugout. Basketball games are not shortened because one team must throw the ball in after the opponent scores.
If pre-tournament publicity clearly states G/115, so be it because EVERYONE is on the same page. Otherwise, the guy who dreamed up this fiasco should be deported and play chess in another country.
1-0
I agree. And the incident described in this thread isn’t even the best reason to dislike this option.
With around 98% of tournament games now being played with a delay, there is a serious truth-in-advertising issue when an advertised G/120 game is actually played at G/115. Further, why reward players who furnish obsolescent equipment with 5 extra minutes on their clocks? It’s long past time to ditch this silly option.
Bill Smythe
THANK YOU … Bill.
For those “chess house lawyers” out there, please also consider the effect on “dual-rated” tournaments. A tournament is rated using both the standard and quick time controls. HOWEVER, by shortening the advertised time limit by five minutes the tournament technically does not quality for dual ratings.
I hadn’t thought about the “truth-in-advertising” analogy. Excellent point you’ve made, Bill.
The USCF does NOT advocate this rule. Shortening the times by 5 minutes is a VARIATION from the normal rules – one that is allowed but NOT encouraged.
Personally, I hate the deduction.
As I understand it, the 5 minute deduction was the standard for a little while when delay was still new, but that was changed, so it no longer is the standard. Personally, I dislike it just because I need all the time I can get. 
You are correct in that the TD has the option of shortening the time control by one minute for each second of delay time. The TD does not have to advertise this in advance.
Rulebook, pages 10-11. Also, Rulebook Changes effective 1 January 2010, page 4.
NOTE: USCF is trying to weasel its way out of culpability by adding “… is also a problematical option that does not come highly recommended due to the confusion involved …”
They are darn right it can be confusing. The unsportsmanlike behavior described a few posts ago is directly traceable to having this option available in the first place. The two players involved could have been great friends and rivals, but because of USCF shortsightedness (as well as the TD’s) that will never happen.
This is a very dumb idea and it needs to be removed from the rulebook entirely.
I don’t see any “weaseling”. It’s pretty straight forward that this is not the recommended practice.
The USCF has considered eliminating this (5-minute deduction) but some TD/TO always complains “but the only way I can fit X games into an evening is by deducting the 5 minutes from my G/30 tournament”. (G/30 is really the only case where a strong claim can be made because G/25 isn’t ratable under the regular system) Personally, I’d rather see G/25 rated and the 5-minute deduction eliminated – it seems more honest to just give the actual time controls that are going to be used…
I am a TD and I could support your idea. As a player I might think twice about risking regular rating points with such a quick time control. And that’s the point. Every player should be able to enter any tournament without such surprises or confusion.
“Knowledge is power” (F. Bacon). Give more power to the players.
Anyone know when the next rulebook will be published?
The deduction was never really standard, but it may have seemed so because CCA used it. The 4th edition was roughly neutral on the issue, while the 5th edition deprecates the deduction.
That could be fixed very easily, without a deduction. Just change the rule so that an event is regular-ratable if the main time in minutes, plus the (announced or default) delay time in seconds, adds up to at least 30. That way, the event time control could be G/25 d/5, and games played with analog clocks could be played at G/25 d/0 and still be ratable.
One wouldn’t need a new rulebook. Several changes have already been made in the rules, and are in effect (they’re on the website somewhere) even though they’re not in the most recent edition.
Bill Smythe
It seems like the problem here is completely different than what is being discussed. Everyone acts like they are getting time taken away from them and they are ignoring the extra 5 seconds per move that they are receiving.
So when the 5 minutes isn’t taken away then they aren’t really playing at the advertized time either. I don’t see any complaints there.
Having said that as a TD my practice has been to not deduct the 5 minutes but to keep the right in reserve. Over the last 10 to 15 years or whatever I have only had to use that right occasionally.
I agree with your point about consistency and pre-tournament notifications, etc. But I think your analogies are slightly off. Football and basketball have never been shortened in the ways you said, so you are correct - they should not be changed now. Further, there is nothing in the “clock technology” changing, in those games, to even motivate any of that.
But in chess, what was once (say) 40/120 with analog timers is now changed by using a digital timer with delay. (If you never use the delay, no reason to change.) So given that a delay is implemented, in the case cited - 40/115/5sec is of course a smaller change that would be 40/120/5sec. So the use of time delay is meant to be an improvement in the way Fischer had introduced it, and the shortening of the first time control is meant to preserve, rather than change, the net “real” time allowed in the game.
And not to overlook your mention of my favorite sport. Baseball never has been, and never will be, on any kind of clock. Thankfully.
Wait a minute - please. You have me listening carefully to your logical points about time delay, but you totally lost me with this statement (above). If a guy is throwing equipment around and repeatedly “F bombing” (always a humorous-but-descriptive term) he has issues that run way, WAY deeper than any clock setting. In fact I’m guessing he missed much of second grade.
I cannot imagine such a person becoming a “great friend and rival” simply by appeasing him with a preferred clock setting.