Mobile phone penalties.

[Joey Stewart]

You know, I would really like the idea of them being allowed to play on but the best possible result they can now achieve is a draw, and if it goes off a second time then they lose the full point.

[Susan Lalic]

At Richmond Rapidplay we announce that the first offence of a phone going off is a warning, and the second offence during the day would be a default. In several years, only one phone has gone off during play, and that belonged to a senior arbiter who was participating. He then promptly offered his hand in resignation, proving he didn't listen to the announcements either!

[LozCooper]

At Richmond Rapidplay we announce that the first offence of a phone going off is a warning, and the second offence during the day would be a default. In several years, only one phone has gone off during play, and that belonged to a senior arbiter who was participating. He then promptly offered his hand in resignation, proving he didn't listen to the announcements either!

That seems a very sensible rule for local events. I'd like to think that players are getting into the habit of switching off mobiles and even if they have the cushion of a warning they'll try and remember to switch them off.

Whilst the forum seems to have covered most eventualities I wondered if the following instances had ever arisen:

If one player knows the mobile number of their opponent and are in a lost position, either the player or more likely a teammate rings the phone on the off chance it is switched on or alternatively a player at a tournament reports his phone missing and then a friend or maybe even official tries ringing the number which is then found, after all, still to be on the player's person or even in his coat or bag at the board.

[Sean Hewitt]

If one player knows the mobile number of their opponent and are in a lost position, either the player or more likely a teammate rings the phone on the off chance it is switched on or alternatively a player at a tournament reports his phone missing and then a friend or maybe even official tries ringing the number which is then found, after all, still to be on the player's person or even in his coat or bag at the board.

How about a controller of a certain well known series of events telephoning a player who was half an hour late to see if he was coming only to find that he had just arrived but forgotten to turn his phone off?

Thankfully, the player had arrived, made his first move and then gone for a coffee or else it could have been very embarrassing

[Anthony Taglione]

The irony in that one is very sweet. So close to being defaulted due to a phone call from the controller of the event.

[LozCooper]

If one player knows the mobile number of their opponent and are in a lost position, either the player or more likely a teammate rings the phone on the off chance it is switched on or alternatively a player at a tournament reports his phone missing and then a friend or maybe even official tries ringing the number which is then found, after all, still to be on the player's person or even in his coat or bag at the board.

How about a controller of a certain well known series of events telephoning a player who was half an hour late to see if he was coming only to find that he had just arrived but forgotten to turn his phone off?

Thankfully, the player had arrived, made his first move and then gone for a coffee or else it could have been very embarrassing

Would the controller have defaulted the player, himself or just wait for the ground to swallow him up
I used to be paranoid chasing late arriving 4ncl players that I'd finally get an answer after they'd stumbled to their board and started play.

[Sean Hewitt]

Would the controller have defaulted the player, himself or just wait for the ground to swallow him up

Thankfully that's a question that I did not have to answer!

[Susan Lalic]

Would the controller have defaulted the player, himself or just wait for the ground to swallow him up

Thankfully that's a question that I did not have to answer!

That's really funny. I never envisaged that scenario.

However, Graeme Buckley's opponent was phoned at the board by an arbiter a few years ago. The arbiter was trying to locate the guy's phone which he thought he had lost. It was in the bag next to him!

The arbiter saved face by making Graeme play on.

[John Saunders]

Just looking at the poll: it seems that we currently have a 'hung parliament'! We have 22 'hawks' (voting for instant default/exclusion) out of 51 but not necessarily 29 'doves' (because we don't know how the arbiters would exercise their 'discretion'). I'm counting 'warning first, then default' voters as 'doves' for this purpose.

I had an idea that I thought might appease the 'hawks'. Under this system, in local league team chess, players would be 'warned' each time their phone sounds and that warning recorded on the result sheet sent to the league secretary - not necessarily marked against the player, but against the team. For every 'x' warnings, the team would then lose 'y' match points (figures set at whatever the league decides is appropriate, given the number of boards played and matches in the season). A similar totting-up system is used in many leagues to penalise teams for the total of defaulted boards and this would be applied in the same way.

It has the advantage that individual games would not be affected but would simply be played out to their logical finish. Hence, no wasted evenings for long-travelling players. 'Hawks' should be happy since the penalty might ultimately prove more severe than single-game losses (depending on the values of 'x' and 'y'). I suppose there might still be disputes of the "your phone rang - no, it didn't" variety but hopefully these would be fewer in number than at present, at least until one of the team's was on the threshold of a lost match point for the next transgression (can't think of a way round that - can anyone else?). By penalising the team rather than the player, it would arguably place the onus on match captains to ensure that their players didn't transgress. Perhaps it would also make persistent offenders suffer a bit in terms of the loss of esteem of their team-mates.

With no arbiter present, it would require a quick, practical and discreet system whereby a player acknowledged that his or her phone had gone off. I would suggest the player put their hand in the air to acknowledge the breach so that it could be noted by match captains or their deputies. There would be plenty of eyes looking in their general direction anyway - I speak from experience! Once the hand signal was noted by the captains there would be no need for any further action by anybody and all games could continue without further disturbance. If no hand signal were forthcoming after a sound was heard, the captains would need to investigate further. Those of a hawkish mentality might like to dream up further cruel and inhuman penalties should no hand signal be forthcoming and a player later found to be in possession of a 'live' mobile...

I realise the 'hand signal' idea sounds a bit childish and humiliating for the player required to do it but I can't think of anything else that is simple and doesn't involve people getting up from the board and bothering each other and generally interrupting play. Maybe the prospect of this momentary humiliation might encourage a few people to switch their phones off in the first place.

It would be a mild extra burden for the match captains and the league secretary to administer. One by-product would be a record of precisely how many phone rings happened during a season and an idea of how significant this problem actually is.

I can't think of a good way to adapt this system for individual tournament chess. Personally I think Richmond Rapidplay's rule (one initial warning per event, then default) seems about right. I did wonder about the equivalent of an office 'swear box' and have the arbiter shake a collection box under the mobile phone rule offender's nose... "£5 in the box, please, for the Arbiters' Benevolent Fund, or your grade will suffer". Maybe that is too great a variation from the FIDE laws...

[Peter Rhodes]

I had an idea that I thought might appease the 'hawks'. Under this system, in local league team chess, players would be 'warned' each time their phone sounds and that warning recorded on the result sheet sent to the league secretary - not necessarily marked against the player, but against the team. For every 'x' warnings, the team would then lose 'y' match points (figures set at whatever the league decides is appropriate, given the number of boards played and matches in the season). A similar totting-up system is used in many leagues to penalise teams for the total of defaulted boards and this would be applied in the same way.

A fine idea. I'd settle with this if it was combined with a more substantial time penalty - something like 15 minutes.

[Martyn Harris]

On the aspect of cheating, I'd prefer, as with most laws in national legislation, that mandating away the possibility of cheating by imposing restriction on everyone's freedom is less appropriate than applying punishment to offenders.

Hear Hear. Don't get involved in an arms race with cheats, generating ever more onerous rules in a vain attempt to control their activities. In practice these rules only catch inadvertant transgressions by honest players. Surely the correct response to cheating is to identify the cheats and give them lengthy bans from the game.

In general rules are more readily accepted if the associated penalties are designed not with the punishment of the transgressor in mind, nor as a deterrence to the wide-boys seeking to gain every advantage, but as a means of protecting the interests of any innocent parties.

Onto mobile phones, and a declaration of personal interest - I don't have one. What to do if a phone rings mid-game?

If there is an arbiter present let them decide the appropriate punishment, depending on their view of the likelihood of cheating being involved and the degree of disturbance created. There will always be those who object to individual rulings that aren't as they would wish, but that is no reason to remove from the independent man on the spot the ability to use his judgement.

As with any other game/sport played with no umpire/referee/arbiter present chess players effectively police themselves in these circumstances. Regardless of the wording of the rules there will be occasions when those present turn a deaf ear to a ringing phone; the more severe the penalty the more likely this is to happen. I would suggest that it would be best if any rule adopted allowed for the completion of the game, and in matches allowed captains to agree variations to cover the imperfect situations reported by various posters in this and related threads. Possible penalties in matchplay beyond those mentioned:
A half-point reduction in the offender's team score. This will change a drawn match into defeat, and may have a bearing on final positions in those leagues that use total game points to split ties. Although in many situations this will turn out to be effectively a zero penalty, this will not be known at the time of the offence, and so will have the deterrence effect that some crave.
Those more into revenge against those who dare to transgress might like to consider the merits of a one (or more) match/week suspension for the player concerned.


Polls such as the one here can be quite entertaining though one should always be aware of their limitations. On this forum the views of those with a relatively modest interest in chess may well be underrepresented. In some quarters it seems to be believed that such players should accept what they are given, yet in the long run we all suffer if they elect to quit the game because they have had one bad experience too many. And for the once-a-month player finding their game halted because they or their opponent inadvertantly left their mobile on is more likely to be regarded as a bad experience than some player escaping punishment when their phone emits a few discreet beeps.

These occasional players matter in principle - just view the objects of Chess Associations given in their constitutions:

... promote, encourage and foster the playing of chess ...

(Cumbria 2007)

To promote chess throughout Oxfordshire ...

The object of the League shall be to promote interest in Chess in and around the City of Portsmouth ...

No mention of just the keenest players. And there is not a lot of promotion involved in driving people away.

These players also matter in practice. I strongly suspect that several teams exist only because of players willing to stand-in for a few games when the main team members are unavailable. Loss of occasional players eventually leads to loss of teams, the effect of which will eventually become apparent even to those who frequent the highest divisions.

The 4NCl uses arbiters.
The London, Manchester and Yorkshire Leagues are such that throughout their area of operation there are other leagues available, and arguably the same is true for the Birmingham league and maybe one or two others. Consequently it would be reasonable for them to have more stringent playing conditions than most.
For the rest however the local league represents the only game in town in at least part of its area of operation, (or is designed purely to offer extra games), and so needs to be as close to all things to all people as possible. Attracting new players can be difficult. But it should be possible to design rules and competitions to retain the interest of the majority of those already playing. Unfortunately this can be at variance with doing things "properly" and making sure that the "right" team wins the title.

[Peter Rhodes]

If there is an arbiter present let them decide the appropriate punishment, depending on their view of the likelihood of cheating being involved and the degree of disturbance created.

Martyn, I agreed with your sentiments, but do you want arbiters to use their own set of value-judgements when excercising their discretion ?

I agree we are in a position that often we have no choice but to do this, but shouldn't we minimise the number of scenarios in which the arbiter calls on his own value-system rather than the values of chess players as directed through the democratic structures and ultimately the laws of the game ?

I like to believe that in a double-blind test, two ECF arbiters would act identically given the same scenario. In fact, any sportsman or serious competitor would wish for this. I like to live in a simple world where I pretend to myself this is true and any deviations from it are bad practice, but the idea that there are people who find the idea of "differing judgements" appealing, fills me with horror !

[IM Jack Rudd]

I like to believe that in a double-blind test, two ECF arbiters would act identically given the same scenario. In fact, any sportsman or serious competitor would wish for this. I like to live in a simple world where I pretend to myself this is true and any deviations from it are bad practice, but the idea that there are people who find the idea of "differing judgements" appealing, fills me with horror !

In most circumstances, two arbiters will act identically given the same scenario. The main circumstances where they won't are situations where the facts of the case are unclear, or the situation is such as to be a close call (a number of 10.2 claims are likely to fall into the latter).

[Anthony Taglione]

I appreciate the sentiments of those who'd wish to see rules strictly and rigidly applied with no room for human error or deliberation. However, our own justice and legal system has human discretion at its cornerstone from the Bobby on the beat right up through magistrates, the judge and jury, all the way up to the home secretary. Whenever a law is alleged to have been broken, an arbiter must deliberate and judge firstly whether a law was broken and then decide what sanction should be applied for the common good.

The Bobby on the beat might see that a law was broken but also see that not only was there no malice intended but also that there was no inconvenience to anyone and so might give a warning instead. A wilful or persistent offender would be treated with less compassion. if a magistrate then sees the offender he or she should endeavour to act for the common good. The judge and jury system is the epitome of deliberation and discretion: not only can the jury deem that no law was broken but the judge often has significant leeway in the degree of penalty he may deem appropriate.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong or unfair in having a situation where one person goes unpunished for having his phone ring and another person misses out on winning an enormous prize. It isn't unreasonable that an arbiter deem that it's in the common good for a warning to be given in one situation and that another arbiter finds that he must hand out a default in the interests of fairness.

[Martyn Harris]

If there is an arbiter present let them decide the appropriate punishment, depending on their view of the likelihood of cheating being involved and the degree of disturbance created.

Martyn, I agreed with your sentiments, but do you want arbiters to use their own set of value-judgements when excercising their discretion ?

Peter, I would hope that to become a qualified arbiter one would have to demonstrate a sensible set of value-judgements. Otherwise you are going to get the same penalty for a few quiet beeps as for Crazy Frog at 100db, the latter of which surely requires referral to the style police at the very least. Removing arbiter discretion is likely to result in some rulings bringing the game into disrepute and to force him to breach FIDE 13.2 : The Arbiter shall act in the best interests of the competition.

Of course if the arbiter is not qualified you cannot expect more than to be taking your chances. When I act as an unqualified arbiter at a small event I warn that I am unqualified, and promise to display any incompetence in an unbiased fashion. This hasn't stopped people turning out in subsequent years.

Still, with football and cricket having problems with match critical decisions such as sending-offs (don't get the Villa fans going), goals, and wickets, should we get too het up over something that is usually only of match-deciding import because FIDE has artificially decreed it is so?