Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Susan Lalic]

"When the call came in (which I believe Victor was expecting - and it was an important call) the phone vibrated against the table (thus making a sound) and distracted several players. I suppose it could be argued that if the rule was not in existance, nobody would have batted an eyelid, but because of the rule, I suppose, everyone who heard it suddenly became interested in what the outcome would be and started to discuss with each other. According to Peter (the CCF player), Victor said "oops" and picked up the phone immediately. Peter also said he heard a beep. I didn't hear this because I was 2 rows away with my back to the match but what I can say without doubt is that the sudden panicky movements disturbed me from my game and I became involved. Victor walked down the room to the door with the phone against his ear. It was his move at the time.

Although I believe that the result is now correct, on a personal level I do share the sympathy for Victor as was stated in the ruling. Victor is a genuinely nice guy who I believe did not realise that what he did was going to cause a problem for him and his team and that, perhaps, is why the Wimbledon captain was so upset to the point that he didn't seem to want to accept a genuine word of sympathy from the CCF President. The message that the ruling intends to convey is that if someone is expecting an urgent call in the future, tell the opposition so that when the phone vibrates (or when he is seen answering, etc), an issue will not be created. In fact, we would have been more than happy if Victor's caller had been given the CCF number to contact him.

The ruling obviously gives the result that would, in the first place, have been given by any qualified controller (I would like to think). What I cannot understand from the statement that has recently been emailed to us and posted on the SCCA web site is how the committee managed to "understand" the original ruling. I know that in reality they probably did not. The reality is that it was probably a case of two particular members of the committee realising that:
"the controller got it completely and utterly wrong but we can't say that in a public ruling because if we do so it will expose certain senior SCCA officers who persuaded him to stand against a much better qualified person for political reasons and now we are reaping what we sowed but can't admit it....". Those that know what happened will know what I am saying! I hasten to add that I do not believe that the whole committee would have been happy with what was written in this regard.

The chairman of the committee asked me during the process (as did the controller) why we didn't consider "playing on under protest." Why? And why would we have thought of that? And why was it down to us to think of that? Furthermore, I was asked by the committee whether we tried to contact the Controller for a ruling at the time. WHY? That question was surely about as daft as asking me why I didn't contact the controller last time I got a checkmate to ensure that I was OK claiming the win. Mind you, the ruling was so flawed (I previously put "floored" - see David Sedgwick's posting below!) in the first place, I don't see what else they could have asked to try and give it credence.


Last edited by Scott Freeman on Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total."

The above is from a few pages ago. Has anyone pointed out the crux of the argument here? The SCCA league allows phones to be in silent mode during play. Victor's phone was in silent mode but his model was tested and unfortunately "whirrs" sometimes when a call comes in.

[Roger de Coverly]

Has anyone pointed out the crux of the argument here?

Are the Surrey rules supposed to permit you to take a call whilst playing? The point of just a warning for first offence is to allow for phones that have been unintentionally left switched on. Would you not expect a silent phone receiving a call to divert to voicemail ? - the holder of the phone can then go outside, listen to the message and only disturb the smokers.

[Susan Lalic]

The ruling obviously gives the result that would, in the first place, have been given by any qualified controller (I would like to think).

Scott, a few years ago I heard that a 2200 player's phone rang during a game in an International Tournament at CCF. The IM opponent claimed the game but was not awarded a win and, rather confused, had to play on. Were you the qualified controller on that occasion?

[Mike Gunn]

I was on the SCCA committee that ruled on the Victor/Peter incident, but in posting here I'm expressing my personal view. Firstly the crucial thing for me was that Peter and three other players (including one from Wimbledon) said they heard the phone. Several players (sitting further away) said they heard nothing.

The other thing I would like to comment on is the phone - we were told that Victor's phone was a Blackberry. I have owned three Blackberry phones and they have a number of settings including Silent, Vibrate, Normal etc. (On the first Blackberry I owned the "Vibrate" setting was called "Discreet"). The committee had the benefit of observing a Blackberry receiving a call in the different modes and when the phone is on Silent no noise is emitted but a light flashes. When the phone is on Vibrate it emits a fairly quiet buzzing noise which was heard by most of the committee members most of the time when the phone was called. (Personally) I concluded that Victor's phone was probably set to Vibrate mode, but really the key thing was that several people said they heard the phone make a noise.

[Kevin Thurlow]

The Surrey rule says

"Notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Laws of Chess, it shall be permitted to bring mobile phones and other electronic means of communication into a playing venue. However, any such device may be used or answered only outside the playing area and must be switched off or in silent mode in the playing area. If any such device is used or produces any sound in the playing area during play, the player shall lose the game."

It is less tortuous than many other Surrey rules. The last sentence however is very clear - phone makes a noise - you lose. I was on the committee as well. Mike's demonstration was very useful, and the table we used was more cushioning of sound than the playing tables.
A friend of mine suggested that flashing lights emanating from a phone are a distraction as well....

Perhaps better wording is...

"Notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Laws of Chess, it shall be permitted to bring mobile phones and other electronic means of communication into a playing venue. However, any such device must be switched off in the playing area, unless the captains or deputies agree otherwise. If any such device is used or produces any sound in the playing area during play, the player shall lose the game."

This would allow the captain to get news of any players with travel difficulties, and allow people to get (genuinely) urgent messages.

[David Sedgwick]

As the Chairman of the Surrey Chess Disputes Committee, I'd like to urge all concerned to move on from the CCF v Wimbledon incident. I responded to Scott Freeman's remarks of 3rd March at the time they were made.

I mentioned then that the SCCA Board woul be bringing proposals to the next AGM to improve the clarity of the Bye Law in question, and I'd like to thank Kevin Thurlow for his helpful suggestion.

The incident in a tournament at Coulsdon several years ago was first raised by Susan Lalic on the SCCU Forum and I've sent my comments thereon to Richard Haddrell for publication there.

All arbiters make mistakes and I myself try to be mindful of this when inclined to crticise fellow arbiters and administrators. I sometimes succumb to the temptation to make an exception in relation to those who consider themselves infallible - see my recent posting on the "Local Law Variants" thread.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I see Ebay has Aldis lamps available...

[Scott Freeman]

Scott, a few years ago I heard that a 2200 player's phone rang during a game in an International Tournament at CCF. The IM opponent claimed the game but was not awarded a win and, rather confused, had to play on. Were you the qualified controller on that occasion?

When I criticsed Graeme Buckley for his original ruling in the CCF 1 v Wimbledon 1 match, I did half expect an attack on that incident - and (as always) I am happy to give her a direct response. But Susan's short comment above hardly explains what happened from start to finish and although it has been raised (by me) on the forum before, a quick potted story for those who hadn't seen it:

Nicholas arrives late for the match complaining that he had lost his phone. I was asked to ring it. If it rand, it was at home safe and sound. If it had been switched off, it had been nicked and needed blocking. Logical! I had to go upstairs to make the call, which I did around 20 minutes later having dealt with other issues. Unbeknown to me, the phone then rings inside Nicholas's bag in the playing hall (he was playing Graeme Buckley - Susan's husband). I was only told about this some while later by another player; Graeme did not come and speak to me at all about it until much later in the round (was it afterwards? - I can't remember now) by which time I had already called David Sedgwick (as a senior arbiter) for advice well before I spoke to either player. He advised me that the game should continue. I went with that decision.

In answer to your question Susan, I was an ECF Arbiter at the time but not yet a FIDE Arbiter (as I am now). I accept that some will view the decision we came to as wrong and some will see it as right in that we used appropriate discretion in an unusual situation. I accept both points of view as legitimate and will criticise neither view. As such, I am happy to accept the criticism of anyone who thinks we made the wrong decision, as I am sure Graeme will accept the criticism I have given him for his recent original decision in the CCF 1 v Wimbledon 1 match.

My further comments concerning his election to the post were bound to bring a reaction from those guilty of the conspiracy (by the way, nice to see you joined the forum recently Susan!) - but then the truth hurts! Graeme is a good guy in my opinion but agreed to go along with something that broke an agreement to draw a line in the sand on issues in the SCCA (which Graeme was not party to for the record). Many of those who made the agreement (the majority of the officers at the time) were clearly not interested in keeping it and looking for a way out of a difficult potential legal situation they had found themselves in. I accept the result of the election, but I will not accept that certain people acted with any decency, honesty or integrity in the situation and that's why I felt it appropriate to make my point.

Susan's suggestion on the SCCU forum pages that I tried to "save face" by allowing the game to continue is hardly accurate. I feel if David S and I had agreed that I should default Nicholas, then I would have done it without a problem. In principle, I do agree with Graeme's stated view (on the SCCU pages) that players are responsible for their own property and mobile phones.

I think most people will see that if I had wanted to "save face" and cover up, I wouldn't have raised the matter on the forum! And for the record, as it was ultimately my decision to make, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to pass the buck to David, whose advice I was very grateful for at the time.

[IM Jack Rudd]

We had a mobile phone incident in today's Somerset v Cornwall match; a Cornish player's phone went off, which everyone - including his opponent - heard. There was, as is usual for these events, no independent arbiter present (although there were at least three experienced arbiters playing for the Somerset team). A while later, the opponent in question asked me "if my opponent's phone goes off, do I have to claim the win immediately?".

I didn't really know what to say there, and passed the question over to one of the other arbiters on my team. The upshot was that the game continued. Fortunately for everyone's sanity, (a) the Somerset player eventually won the game, and (b) Somerset would have won the match even if he hadn't.

[Rob Thompson]

Similarly, we had a mobile phone issue in the Gloucester vs Devon county match. A Gloucester phone goes off, he calmly admits to it and carries on. His opponent claims, but everyone is slightly confused as to why the guilty party has not made any sign of accepting the punishment. Again, there were no independent arbiters present, and only one in the hall (i think) who was carrying on with his game and no-one really wanted to interrupt. Eventually the Devon captain explained the situation to the Gloucester captain, and together they defaulted the player, about 10 minutes after the incident actually happened

[Alex Holowczak]

Perhaps there should be an announcement along the following lines:

"Please switch your phone off. If it makes a noise, you will be defaulted. No questions asked."

Usually, the mobile phone announcement is made as a polite request. If the arbiter made a more assertive request, people would be more careful to switch it off beforehand.

While this would set a precedent about announcing the rules of the game beforehand - in my opinion, the players should know the rules of a game they're prepared to pay good money to play - it might result in a few more people being aware of the consequences of their actions. It's possible that the casual player is completely unaware of the punishment of being defaulted.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It's possible that the casual player is completely unaware of the punishment of being defaulted.

I suspected this was the case with the Cornwall player in question (ungraded, playing on bottom board).

[Eoin Devane]

It's possible that the casual player is completely unaware of the punishment of being defaulted.

It's not just casual players - remember Gustavo.

I agree, while we do still have this draconian punishment in place, we should at least make it's existence clear to all players. I see your point about setting a precedent, but I'd say that this rule in particular is deserving of an announcement due to the lack of leeway allowed. To some extent, if you don't know other rules you can find out during the course of the game (possibly after being subjected to some minor penalty). However, if your phone goes of, you lose the game, and that is that. By the time you've learned the rule it's too late.

[David Sedgwick]

Perhaps there should be an announcement along the following lines:

"Please switch your phone off. If it makes a noise, you will be defaulted. No questions asked."

Usually, the mobile phone announcement is made as a polite request. If the arbiter made a more assertive request, people would be more careful to switch it off beforehand.

While this would set a precedent about announcing the rules of the game beforehand - in my opinion, the players should know the rules of a game they're prepared to pay good money to play - it might result in a few more people being aware of the consequences of their actions. It's possible that the casual player is completely unaware of the punishment of being defaulted.

I usually try to make an announcement along the lines you suggest. At the recent Varsity Match I not only did this but also spoke to the two captains privately beforehand. Obviously I had in mind the episode at the BUCA Championships a week earlier.

I can't see any problem about the arbiter reminding players of the rules before the start of play.

[Eoin Devane]

At the recent Varsity Match I not only did this but also spoke to the two captains privately beforehand. Obviously I had in mind the episode at the BUCA Championships a week earlier.

Your announcement at Varsity was much appreciated and is exactly the sort of warning that I would like to be employed at all events at which the mobile default rule is to be applied.