Claiming a draw

A friend of mine (‘F’) had the following happen to him in a recent tournament played at rapid time control. He was in an endgame of equal bishops with a pawn up. His opponent (‘O’) had about a minute left, while he was sitting pretty at 10min. O. called the arbiter and asked for a draw because F. was only playing for time. After a brief discussion, where F. disputed that claim, the arbiter announced he would not make a decision immediately but would wait and see how the game developed.

Play continued and through some poor decisions, not only did F. lose his plus pawn, he went a pawn short subsequently. Then O’s time ran out. Besides the bishops, there were still several pawns of both colors on the board. The arbiter decided to call the game a draw. Was that the correct decision?

Note: I played in the same tournament but did not see events unfold and am going by the account of the friend.
Everyone’s opinion is welcome but I’m mostly interested in what any FIDE-arbiter has to say about it.

If his time ran out then he should have lost the game, no excuses. Flagging is a regular way to win the game Ivanchuk could write a book about that.

Generally speaking, this rule produces nothing else than rows. It‘s good that it doesn’t apply to blitz, increment, and may organizers rule it out beforehand. I rarely encounter it, practically never.

In principle the arbiter can declare it a draw after a flag fell. It depends on the arbiter whether to play on, whether to wait, whether to give a draw.

Example: once I had BB-B and I asked several arbiters: some would decide on draw immediately, others decide 1:0 when the flag falls, others draw but later...

A bit strange, because it seems to me there’s some life in the position described, so „flag“ should count. Very vague verdict, I know. The exact position would help in this case. And the moves of course: how to decide if he tried to win by „normal means“?

Summary: considering all degrees of freedom this rules implies there can never be a „wrong“ decision de facto. ;)

The rule as of 2017:

„Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes
G.1
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.
G.2
Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
G.3.
This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.
G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
G.5
If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.„

EDIT: Ah, I see I was beaten to it, but here's a link in any case. :)

www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
G.5
If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means

If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.

Yes.

This was clearly an event where 'quickplay finish' rules were in play. See section G.5 of the FIDE rules here: www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

"G.5
If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes."

Playing to win on time only is not a valid strategy in events where quickplay finish rules apply.

Although I really wonder why we play any games without increment. Notably these rules do not apply to games where this is an increment and in any case would be unnecessary. Chess without increment feels like how pool/billiards without chalk might play where you introduce a meta-element (hoping the other guy uses up his chalk) that works to de-emphasize the 'natural' goal of the game.

@OhNoMyPants: As a (low-level) arbiter, I agree. G5 inherently is a messy rule, as it can be hard to assess if a player is really trying to win OTB. An option to avoid it might be to use an increment, even just 1 second would be enough, and on top of the regular time for a rapid game it really shouldn't matter that much for a tournament schedule.

Alternatively, the tournament rules could list that Article G.4 applies. In that case, a player with little time can request to finish off the game with an increment of 5 s/move (for both players), and his opponent will be granted 2 minutes of extra time. This request is also a draw offer, so you can only use it, if you're not playing for the win yourself.

Actually, because it is a draw offer, if you are clearly better, the opponent will probably accept right away (instead of losing OTB). And if you're in a losing position, you only make it easier for your opponent to win.
So the only logical way in which this rule is used, is if the position is a draw, or the player who is better is in such serious time trouble that he is satisfied with draw.

I would say G5 is an older version of G4, which works for analog clocks... Imho G4 is preferable in all cases, except if a tournament has no digital clocks available... In any case, both of them are intended to keep the games interesting, and avoid play where one player is only attempting to win only on time.

Regarding the specific case: it is customary to play until the flag falls, and only then decide. If the player who made the claim actually gained the upper hand during the remaining time, I would say the arbiter was right to call it a draw.
The messy situations actually are those in which it is unclear if the other player made progress or whether he didn't... It might be that in fact the position is indeed won for the player with more time and he has a winning plan, but the arbiter is unable to accurately assess this.
I've been in a similar situation where an arbiter didn't think I could win, while I definitely was very confident I could...

G4 is much more convenient in this sense, the arbiter does not have to make the final call. If you're a tournament organiser, definitely consider changing the tempo to have a small increment. For example 14 minutes + 1 second per move instead of 15 minutes, or use article G4 if you don't have enough digital clocks for all boards (and make sure the arbiters have a few of them in case people use article G4).

Thanks everyone for responding. This may not be the answer he would have liked to hear, but at least it means the decision was the right one and it should bring closure.

He probably fell into the same thinking „trap“ like #2!? @gayweather

No, this rule is somewhat special. It is probably the most controversial rule because the referee is the „third player“, the verdict is spoken after time-out, one has to assess winning attempts.

See, people have problems with less complicated rules...