Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[Justin Hadi]

It's a good solution indeed but would it be countenanced by arbiters, say in the 4NCL or an individual swiss tournament?

[David Sedgwick]

How about a players loses the point, but the game continues for grading in the event of a phone going off? Any arguments or doubts can be sorted out after the match.

Would you really want such a rule in a Swiss Tournament? Your opponent's phone rings, but you have to play on for grading purposes and you lose. However, the game counts as a win in the resuls table and you receive a more difficult pairing in the next round.

The alternative is that you claim a win, have the same pairing as you would in the scenario you describe, but have many hours to kill until the next round.

Yes, but at least you gain rather than lose grading points in the game where the incident occurred.

[David Sedgwick]

It's a good solution indeed but would it be countenanced by arbiters, say in the 4NCL or an individual swiss tournament?

In the 4NCL, I would imagine not - it's a FIDE rated event.

I've commented above about the problems I discern in the case of a Swiss. There's also the administrative issue that the grader would have to remember to edit the grading file following the event.

I'm usually the arbiter for the London half of the National Club Finals. I wouldn't have a problem there, so long as it was genuinely a case of the player who had "won" the game making the same offer as Richard Almond did.

It's not a perfect solution by any means. In the county match case Richard subsequently commented that he felt that his opponent hadn't played as well as he would have done in normal circumstances.

[Susan Lalic]

Yes, but at least you gain rather than lose grading points in the game where the incident occurred.

Strikes me that grading points being awarded due to mobile phone incidents could distort some gradings. If someone is winning 3 games in a season, and loses all 3 when his phone rings, he could be as much as 15 points down on his true playing strength, depending on how many games he plays.

[Paul McKeown]

I don't think I could treat the game fully seriously after such an incident had occurred. The "Almond Solution" might work for some, but not for all.

Regards,

[David Lettington]

Perhaps offer the affected party the choice of whether they would like to claim the point by default or play on?

I think that this places an unfair burden on the affected party. I played at a Swiss event where my opponent's mobile rang. There was no ECF arbiter present, but the tournament controller heard it ring. I approached the controller to ask his advice and he seemed unaware that I should be awarded the game as he asked me if I wished to "claim" a win. I said that I did. My opponent then spoke to the controller once I was out of earshot and the controller told him that the game was lost because I had claimed a win. My opponent then rounded on me in extremely abusive terms because I had done so. If the tournament controller had simply said "that's the rule - tough luck" then this unpleasant situation would have been avoided.

[Peter Rhodes]

A minority of people have strong views and they're pretty evenly split between the two camps. The majority have no strong view and are content to form a consensus in either direction at Committee Meetings and AGMs.

Is it also possible that those who are happy with the status-quo are more likely to sit back and choose not to voice their opinion ? This is a well documented behaviour seen in general elections in "safe seats" where there is strong support for a particular party.

My opponent then rounded on me in extremely abusive terms

I sympathise with you. "The fox condemns the trap, not himself" (Blake).

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

I think that this places an unfair burden on the affected party.

I completely agree, the pressure should be on the tournament organisers/arbiters/controllers to make all of the players fully aware of the consequences of not turning your mobile off. There should be on pressure on the player. I also would like the opportunity if I were playing an opponent and their mobile went off, to perhaps be able to negotiate with the arbiter that I'd like to carry on as if no mobile had rung. Then again if I had the misfortune to face the following...

My opponent then rounded on me in extremely abusive terms because I had done so.

... I'm claiming that point! You are told the rules, don't get upset if you avoidably fall foul of them.

[Sean Hewitt]

We have only had one instance of a phone going off at an e2e4 event.

On that occassion I took both players out of the playing and told the owner of the phone that I had no option but to default him. He was not happy, although not unpleasant, and wanted me to give his opponent the option of playing on. I refused to allow any thought of continuing the game as the laws were clear - phone noise equals automatic loss. I pointed out that the opponent had no say in the matter and that, if I allowed play to continue this would set a dangerous precedent in the event of a further mobile phone incident. He accepted the decision.

Afterwards the winner came to see me. He thanked me for the way that I had handled the situation, particularly over the option of playing on. He said that he did not really want to play on, but would have felt under considerable pressure to do so had I given him the option. He was extremely grateful that I had not allowed him to answer the question.

I think an automatic default is an appropriate punishment, but respect the opinions of those who take a different view. I think that we have so little mobile problems precisely because of the draconian punishment. That even applies in events where they do not apply the laws correctly as I think most players believe that a mobile phone ring is a loss - even when it's not! However, I think the above example demonstrates that a fixed penalty takes alot of heat out of the situation. If local variations must be used then fixed penalities are preferable to arbiters discretion in my opinion. It's difficult for any player to argue against a fixed penalty.

[John Saunders]

Yes, I think Sean makes an extremely good case against the concept of arbiter discretion. I totally agree with him that there should be a set, absolute penalty in the case of a phone ring which is made known to all the competitors and applied in exactly the same way throughout a given competition. It is not appropriate for an arbiter to give the opponent the option to 'claim' or not as it has nothing whatever to do with them and, as has been demonstrated, opens the door to unfortunate wrangles and bad feeling.

The only thing on which Sean and I disagree is the penalty! He thinks a default is appropriate - I do not. For one thing, I don't think it is fair for the opponent of the mobile phone offender to be rewarded with a gift point when the disturbance may have equally affected neighbouring boards whose chances may actually be prejudiced by the award of the default point - adding injury to insult, as one might say. I think that any penalty should be tailored so as not to reward the opponent of the mobile phone offender any more than it does other players in the competition. For example, the game could be played to a finish and a normal result, but the offender has half or whole point deducted from their competition score. Why truncate the game? There is no need to do this.

[Susan Lalic]

Why truncate the game? There is no need to do this.

Totally agree. A fine, or some sort of point penalty system would be enough. The game being stopped is all out of proportion.

It is good to hear that the ECF will be putting forward alternative proposals.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Ooooh, I like John's idea! Seems very sensible.

[Alan Walton]

I remember that at the ACT tournament in Amsterdam, if a mobile phone went of then there was a fine of 10 Euros for the first offence, and increasing for every offence thereafter, with all money's received going to charity. They were very effective in hunting the offenders down

This was only applicable to spectators and competitors who had finished the game.

The default rule still applied though for competitors whilst still playing

[David Sedgwick]

For example, the game could be played to a finish and a normal result, but the offender has half or whole point deducted from their competition score. Why truncate the game? There is no need to do this.

Totally agree. A fine, or some sort of point penalty system would be enough. The game being stopped is all out of proportion.

Let us suppose the penalty is one point.

Team A is leading Team B 8-7 in a county match. In the remaining game the A player's mobile rings. Under the present regulations that player loses and the final score is 8-8.

Under the proposed system Team A is docked a point and the game continues. Suppose the B Player wins. Now the final score is 8-7 to Team B and Team A have lost a match that, on the face of it, they could do no worse than draw.

Is that really preferable?

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Team A is leading Team B 8-7 in a county match. In the remaining game the A player's mobile rings. Under the present regulations that player loses and the final score is 8-8.

Under the proposed system Team A is docked a point and the game continues. Suppose the B Player wins. Now the final score is 8-7 to Team B and Team A have lost a match that, on the face of it, they could do no worse than draw.

Is that really preferable?

Is it fair that Team B's player loses his right to play and finish his game having journeyed from some far-off place and have the game finish artificially short. It's not that much better than getting the game on default.