Bulldog Chess with Witch and Guard (PerpetuallyPinned vs Marks1420)

Time warning

I'll claim the win now

@Marks1420 is using vacation time, so you don't win on time. From the rules:

From the rules:

"The player must announce it before using the extra time."

2 hours were used before the time warning. 12 hours were used after the time warning.

Another thing...if all 14 days were used, more than 17 days for a move would be allowed to play a move.

Let's not change the rules during a game.

There's no exception mentioned for claiming vacation after a time warning is issued.

You made your move July 17, 17:16

After July 20, 17:16, then 3 days have passed and you can call a timeout warning

July 20, 19:38 you call a timeout warning. This means Marks must make a move before July 21, 19:38 or he will lose on time and he has one less warning he can receive before move 40.

July 21, 9:07 ET (before losing on time) Marks calls for vacation time, adding 14 days to make his next move.

I think it is a bit unclear whether Marks have until August 3, 17:16 to make a move or if it is until August 4, 19:38. In either case the time warning will count towards the 3 time warning limit, since you need to announce vacation time before using it.

Mark called vacation in another game 4 days ago, without even playing his first move. It seems obvious to me he forgot to call vacation for this game, and it's certainly clear that he's not abusing vacation to buy himself more analysis time. I hope all is well with him.

The part of the rule that says "The player must announce it before using the extra time" is ambiguous, and needs to be clarified for the future. For me, the term "extra time" in this context means vacation time, not time warning. But I appreciate it's not clear.

With that said, it's harsh to time someone out because of an ambiguous rule. 

I would encourage @PerpetuallyPinned to accept the vacation and continue the game when Mark returns.  If this can't be settled, then the Federation members will probably have to vote to decide how to proceed.

Does this really need to be so complicated?

Seems like the rules are being adjusted on the fly to help poeple delay games with vacation.

Nowhere in the rules, does it say a player can announce vacation after a time warning in order to extend the time to move, if the time warning hasn't expired.

Why is there someone interpreting rules and someone clarifying someone else's intentions?

What's going on?

"Nowhere in the rules, does it say a player can announce vacation after a time warning in order to extend the time to move, if the time warning hasn't expired."

Nowhere does it say you can't, either. Hence, it is ambiguous. That's why it's complicated.

To be clear, myself and Martin are chipping in because we are members of the Federation, along with evert and Vickalan. We'll be the ones voting to decide how this is settled if the players cannot agree. And we will base our decision on how we interpret the rules, not how we interpret someone's intentions. 

This comes down to nothing more than how we interpret "The player must announce it before using the extra time". 

Rules are made to be clear, but when they are not clear you need to interpret them.

It is not stated when you can announce vacation time, just that you need to announce it before using it. So as long as you don't announce vacation time after losing on time it sounds fine to me.

Not sure why you think Marks is using vacation time to delay the game. He uses it because he needs it.

If you really dislike vacation time you could agree with your opponent before the game that no vacation time should be used. Similar to how you can agree to a different time control.

Ok, seems that the interpretation is different than mine. To me, the phrase "extra time" means "vacation time". Of course there is "time warning time" and "3 day move time" also.

Surely couldn't be confused with the others. The context is clearly labeled by section "15. Vacation time:"

As for being ambiguous...

Saying that you must or shall do something means that there is a requirement.

"The player must (a requirement) announce (a procedure) it (the topic) before using the extra time (also it)."

Why is there a need for interpretation?

The interpretation is about what "extra time" means in the context of a rule that is related to vacation, not time warning.

The rule will be clarified, and probably in such a way to allow vacation to be called after a time warning has been issued, but before that time warning expires. That's another discussion for the Federation and will be resolved quickly to ensure this doesn't happen again.

As for this game, then we have two options...

1) that the players settle this without the need for Federation intervention,

2) that the Federation has to vote to decide if Mark is allowed, based on the current rules, to call vacation after being issued with a time warning.

It is better for all parties if it's the first option, since if it's the second, then there will likely be continued dispute, whatever is decided. 

It isn't easy for the rules makers to think of every possible problem that might arise. When the rules are not clear, they will be fixed as soon as it becomes clear there's an ambiguity. That will happen soon. 

I'm not sure why you think you know what I think.

My comment about delays was about the rules. They seem to favor a player that delays. The onus is on the other player to enforce the rules. And then they're subject to interpretation.

The rules say vacation is added to the 3 day move limit, and must be announced before using it.

In this case, vacation was announced after the 3 day move limit and after a time warning.

There are good points there that will form part of the discussion on how to ensure the rules are clear and fair.

The players have settled for the sake of the Federation.

Thanks for your attention and patience,

White resigns

sigh

Well at least that makes it easy for us. Now all we have to do is fix the rules, we don't have to decide how this game is resolved. Thanks.

It's the least I could do...lol

I'm sorry the rules weren't clear and that this couldn't be resolved by simply waiting for Mark to return.

We do still have a decision to make though. White resigned after black allegedly timed out, so we still have to decide if black timed out or not.

From what I'm gathering, some have considered it acceptable to announce vacation after a time warning. Maybe games have been played that way, I'm not sure. You'll likely not go back over all games to find out, so why this one?

Only reason it's gotten this far is because I argued.

I'd recommend voting on clarifying the rules and leaving the game be as it is.