Richardson/Spens results

[Alex McFarlane]

It is standard for arbiters in Scotland and England WHEN ASKED to look after a phone to say something like "You can leave it on/under/behind our desk but we do not accept responsibility for it."

A player would be expected to have turned his phone off.
I would say that if the phone rings it is a loss. However things like low battery warning beeps I would ignore in terms of awarding a penalty.

[Mike Truran]

vi)
Enforcement of the new Law 11.3.b will be implemented in a milder version to take account of the fact that many amateur players will take part in a tournament after work or other social activities. It may become inconvenient or impossible for them to leave all devices out of the playing venue. The ACC therefore recommends to RTRC to change 11.3.b to match the following policy:
“In tournaments open to amateur players, the prohibition to introduce electronic devices in the
playing venue may, and indeed should be waived. However, under no circumstances a player
shall be allowed to carry a mobile phone or other device capable of processing or transmitting
chess analysis, whether switched on or off, working or not, on his body during play. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying a device in a bag or in the pocket of a jacket. Any player found carrying such a device shall immediately be forfeited his game, with rating points calculated. A second offense during the same tournament shall imply an immediate ban from the tournament, with the player’s name forwarded to the ACC for further investigation.”

Alex, the above is from the FIDE handbook ('standard protection' guidelines for events such as Richardson/Spens). The implication seems to me to be quite clear - if the phone is not 'on his body' there is no reason to default the player. Presumably local rules can make the requirement more stringent, but somehow I doubt that the Richardson/Spens rules would have done that.

[Andy Howie]

Well that pretty much kills league chess...

[Mike Truran]

Andy, the FIDE handbook only applies to FIDE rated events - so my understanding is that local (non-FIDE rated) league chess can set its own standards.

My point was that even if the Richardson/Spens finals were FIDE rated, the FIDE handbook still gives latitude to put in place a less onerous regime for such events. Hence my question - what would the arbiters have done had not Jacob voluntarily thrown himself on his own sword?

[Andy Howie]

The Chief arbiter on the day announced that in the event of a phone going off, the player would lose the game.

The question is if a player leaves a phone on the arbiters table and it goes off, who is responsible?

It is clear that we need to use something better and David has given me a really good solution that I am going to implement next time It is simplicity itself, the arbiter has some white sealable envelopes. If the player must bring a phone into the playing hall, they have to seal it and it stays on their table next to them. They are not allowed to touch the envelope during play. Obviously if the phone goes off in the envelope it is the players responsibility.

Good simple idea that solves the issue of responsibility

[Ianbrownlee]

guess what happened to yours truly last night at the club

My family spent two and a half hours trying to contact me cos my son severely got burnt in the arm and was at the hospital. I'm STILL getting pelters from my wife cos i'm in the habit of leaving my phone in the car when I go to the club. I try to explain the rules to Janet bur she wont listen. The tollbooth in Lanark doesn't have a phone so there's no means to contact me. My wife is insistent I've got my priorities wrong.

BTW Janet wasn't available either , she was at work and she's not allowed her phone either. At least she can check her phone during the break