English Chess Forum

Does anyone know what happened in this afternoon's game between Mark Hebden vs John Merriman at the Blackpool Open, as it shows Mark won in only 6 moves!!

J. Moore wrote:Does anyone know what happened in this afternoon's game between Mark Hebden vs John Merriman at the Blackpool Open, as it shows Mark won in only 6 moves!!

Ironic given the debate here Merriman lost due to his phone going off

Clearly default threats as a deterrent didn't work then...

It is not there as a deterrent, it is there as a punishment.

It shows what happens if you idiotically forget to switch it totally off

Rob Thompson wrote:Clearly default threats as a deterrent didn't work then...

Worked as a deterrent for the other hundreds of participants though didn't it?

Maybe. Or maybe they were simply courteous

Let's invite John onto the forum so he can cast his vote in that poll
in the thread. Mobile phone penalties.

The next time I go to a tournament. I think I'll take my wife's phone. When it rings, I can truthfully say that it's not mine. If I can get her to hide it somewhere about my person, the location unbeknownst to me, I could even claim not to know it was there.

A lot of players hang their jacket over their chair.

When they go for a we walk drop a mobile into their pocket.

(you can pick up cheapo mobiles for £2 in junk shops).

Dial number on your 'muted' mobile but not press send.

Wait till controller is near you - press send.

11 moblies will cost £22.00 - first prize at the Britsh £10,000.

Ernie Lazenby wrote:... the reason why this person who is an up and coming junior playing in the open was not defaulted is that no one complained to the arbiters. The congress is not FIDE rated something one of the arbiters pointed out to me while indicating that if anyone had complained about the offenders phone sounding he would have had to default them.His logic was that if the event had been FIDE rated he would have had to default the offender even if no one had complained.

Which raises some interesting questions:

1. What's the relevance of FIDE rating of the event? The rules are the same whether or not the games are FIDE rated.
2. Why would anyone have complained to the arbiters about the phone going off if they knew the rules? Wouldn't they reasonably expect the arbiters to apply the rules without being asked to?
3. To what extent should players and/or arbiters be allowed to agree to break the rules? (I recently played in an event where the player on the board next to me arrived about 10 minutes after the default time, but the game was played, which presumably suited both players. The game was drawn. The late player eventually won a female player prize. Had she been defaulted, she might not have done, so other female competitors may have lost out as a result of the agreement to play the game.)

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Mark Hebden enforced the rule as he is perfectly entitled to do.

We might even get a post out of him as it's one of my challenges in life

What are your thoughts on the rule Mark?

Ian Thompson wrote:2. Why would anyone have complained to the arbiters about the phone going off if they knew the rules? Wouldn't they reasonably expect the arbiters to apply the rules without being asked to?

I suppose the arbiter might not hear the phone, especially if the sound was just a brief 'ping' announcing the arrival of a text message. Somebody would then have to draw the arbiter's attention to the situation unless the phone's owner accepted the loss immediately.

This is one of the practical problems with this law. Unlike a loss on time, which the players usually sort out themselves even if there is no arbiter watching, a mobile phone loss doesn't seem to prompt the same automatic acceptance of the situation, even though it should.

The key question is, did the organisers at Blackpool change (and publicise / announce in advance that they had done so) the mobile phone law to some local rule? If they did, and the rule was a player had to claim the game then although I don't like that personally there is no problem.

If not, then Mark did not need to 'enforce' the rule and the arbiter should not have allowed the other offence to pass unpunished, regardless of the players wishes. I think Ian T's example shows why the laws should be adhered to. Decisions on a game played in a tournament can affect other players - not just those playing in the game itself.

I think anyone finding himself in such a situation, and wishing to enforce the rule, should simply stop the clock and sign the scoresheet. If the opponent/transgressor declines to accept his loss then call an arbiter.

Sean Hewitt wrote:The key question is, did the organisers at Blackpool change (and publicise / announce in advance that they had done so) the mobile phone law to some local rule? If they did, and the rule was a player had to claim the game then although I don't like that personally there is no problem.

I wasn't there, but I do still have the entry form. As far as I can see, there is nothing on it to indicate a rule change.