The tournament I directed last weekend allowed irrevocable half point byes for the final round in most sections. One player availed himself of this opportunity, then won his first two games. He asked me if he could withdraw his request, and I told him that he could, but if he won the game he would only receive half a point. Ultimately he declined to play, but now I’m curious how this should have been reported. My guess is include the actual result of the game (if the player had won) in an extra rated games section, and a zero point bye for the opponent in the main section. I generally don’t offer final round byes, so I would appreciate responses from those who have dealt with this more often.
Irrevocable should be just that. No option to change your mind. Furthermore, usually a final round bye is due to travel for the player involved. The reason to offer a bye [final round or other rounds] is so a player who has other commitments could still play in your event.
You are forgetting about rule 22C5, which explicitly permits cancellation of an irrevocable half point bye under the condition that the player cannot gain any more points by playing the game than s/he could have received by taking the bye. Note the word “permits”. The TD is not obligated to let the player play the game, and I would not do so if I have an even number of players for the round in question in that section without letting the player back in. I wouldn’t allow someone to cancel an irrevocable bye if by doing so someone else was forced to receive an unrequested bye.
When I have done this in the past I have reported the result as I normally would report any result. For the purposes of awarding prizes the player only receives half a point for a win, but for the purposes of the rating report US Chess doesn’t care how you award the prizes, so there’s no need to take the game out it’s section and stick it in an Extra Games section.
My problem with this is that MSA will not reflect the tournament result. For example, MSA may say Mr. Parker scored 4/4 and list him at the top of the wallchart even though he really tied for first at 3.5. I find that less desirable as, a few years later, few may remember the facts.
Yes, its really not clear how this should be reported, since if it is reported in a separate section, then the opponent’s result is not correctly included in the section.
Also, while I understand the point of this rule, I think its actually incorrect.
There is a long standing rule in math and logic. The rule is that if you have no knowledge of something, then your information (odds) are exactly the same as if the something did not occur. Some might say “what you don’t know, doesn’t impact you.” – of course-- until you know it.
An example is a classic problem in probability – for example: Suppose there are 100 cartons of milk on the wall of a grocery store, and you are there to purchase a carton. Just before you select a carton, a clerk walks up to you and says: “We’ve just been informed that two of the cartons in this group of 100 contain bad milk.”
What are your odds of selecting a bad carton? Well, 2 out of 100, or 2%.
Now suppose you really need the milk, so you go to select one anyway. And just before you do, someone walks up and takes 2 cartons off the shelf.
NOW what are your odds of selecting a bad carton? The answer is: 2%! Because you don’t know if any bad cartons were selected or not, if you work through all the math, it turns out that your odds are unchanged.
This is why an irrevocable bye makes sense for the final round. It’s selected when the person knows nothing about the tournament standings. When they do know something, the person cannot change it.
So, undoubtedly the thought behind 22C5 is that its a “fair” (in the technical sense) approach since the person cannot do any better than they would have been able to do with the irrevocable bye - and in fact - they could do worse.
But I think there is a flaw in this logic. Allowing the person to change their election is theoretically legitimate iff (if and only if) the fact that the player was taking the irrevocable bye was never announced. If it was announced, then all the potential opponents in the tournament had a change of information. So, letting the player change their election at the last round effectively changes the odds for all the potential opponents, because it changes their information.
This is reflected, for example, in a change of pairings. The opponent of the player, and all the other players, receive different pairings than if the irrevocable bye occurred.
This is avoided iff the player is treated as a house-man for the pairings, and the player is given someone who would have otherwise had a bye. But this is effectively the same as treating the player as though the irrevocable bye were not revoked, and then pairing the player as a house man and reporting it in a separate section.
From this I conclude that 22C5 as currently written is not fair, and is logically incorrect. It should be changed to read:
This is a fair and simple approach. From a logical perspective, the following COULD be used, because it is theoretically fair, but its no longer simple:
The opponent would either get 0, .5 points or 1 point as a bye in the main round and the actual game result would be posted in the extra games.
How you do it would depend on what rules you set up for the event. I think the game results would stand as whatever points you give in a bye to the opponent.
So if the opponent won - 1 point bye in main event, draw = .5 and a loss would be 0 bye.
Then the results in MSA would actually be correct for points.
I prefer to keep the game in its proper section, and keep an Extra Games section for games which aren’t actually part of the tournament, if at all possible. I don’t think there is much chance that a few years later anyone is going to go looking at an old tournament to try to figure out exactly who got what places. If that should happen (hasn’t happened to me yet) I’ll deal with it. However, I also don’t think it makes a great deal of difference how you do it. As long as you remember to give only half a point for prize purposes to the player who had originally requested the bye even if he wins the game, and you report the game score correctly to US Chess, then you should be OK. Whatever works.
We once had a player cancel an irrevocable zero point bye. He knew he was playing for rating points and bragging rights only, and he was fine with that.
I have had people - including myself - look back at events years ago and remember/reminisce about what happened. I’m in favor of MSA evolving into a more advanced permanent tournament reporting system. It adds to the value US Chess provides. But that’s all another topic.
The point is valid, but every other player should know rule 22C5, and thus that the player may change his mind. FWIW, I view that as defensive. The player with an irrevocable bye is trying to make 3.5/4 the top score. He is taking some risk here as his guaranteed 3.5 may slip to 3.
By analogy, it is completely fair that White always moves first because every player knows this and the system for assigning a player White is fair.
While I agree logically that they should know that he can cancel via 22C5, I think there are some issues. (What’s funny is how excessively meta this rule is, since of course, without the rule, they wouldn’t know that - which is why I didn’t think of this point - I was viewing the rule set with this to be added, as opposed to “assume it already exists.”)
Even so, the rule is not terribly explicit, and if fact, is somewhat misleading.
First, there’s the concept of cancelling an irrevocable election - which on its face is counterintuitive and therefore somewhat misrepresentative. This, at least, calls for re-wording.
Because of this, while I agree “logically” that “…they should know that he can cancel via 22C5.” – it wouldn’t surprise me if, in fact, the other players didn’t know that an irrevocable election could be canceled.
Further, if we therefore accept this argument and rule as written, besides re-phrasing “irrevocable” it wouldn’t hurt to note that …in the event of cancellation, the player will be paired normally.
Keeping MSA aligned to the actual tournament result is a favor to yourself and all those who will come after you. MSA is the golden record now, not state publications or club newsletters. 5-10 years from now the player who tied for first without all the hassle will look at the wallchart and ask, “Wait a minute…I tied with that schmoe, he didn’t beat me! Did I get all the rating points I was entitled to? Does the club owe me money?” And then Alice goes down the rabbit hole.
A director that enables a player to cancel an irrevocable bye should take the pain on the front end to submit to MSA in a way that the main section will display the end result correctly. Kicking the can down the road after ignoring the rules is simply being the jerk [true, overstated case here].
Or maybe I’m just bitter about having to research similar circumstances created by other directors . Don’t be that guy/gal.
If he wins the game then re-enter him in the same section with the opponent playing the re-entry, while the 1/2 point bye goes on the original entry (and the 1-0 score is also ineligible for any prizes on the off chance the player is the sole person in the class and there are either two class prizes or one class prize and the player’s original entry is getting an open prize).
Since everything is in one section that keeps the bonus point calculation correct for both players. Tie-breaks for trophies could be difficult and require manual adjustment but you’ll have all of the information for that in one section.
I guess I am in the minority. In club events, I allow players to take away their Irrevocable half point bye with the understanding that they become ineligible for prizes. Most of the time the players who are in prize contention say, “I think I will keep my bye.”
In events where there are bigger prizes involve, I do not allow players to retract their byes.
I generally only allow the revocation of zero point byes (though some organizers I work for will allow a 22C5 revocation). I remember one time where a player waited too long to get a final-round half point bye and thus accepted a zero point bye, but later the player’s schedule changed and the player could actually play in the final round - which was allowable because an irrevocable bye had NOT been taken.
As I remember it, the tournament allowed half point byes in all rounds except the last one. Last round byes were zero point byes, and all byes had to be committed to when entering, with no changes possible.
Making zero-point byes non-revocable gives an incentive for waiting until after the penultimate round to withdraw (with the chance that the withdrawal notification is not given quickly enough to avoid pairing the player).
I have seen a late request of a zero-point bye for the final round with the player staying on-site through the round. The reason given was that the player was tired and knew he would not play well. The reason some suspected was that the player was leading his class (single section tournament) and figured that a zero-point bye would make it more likely that his closest contender would be paired against a significantly higher rated opponent (and lose - which actually did happen) with the result that the player would take first for the class.
As an organizer, you have to love half point byes. They encourage/allow/sucker more players to play in your event. The reason players want them isn’t as important as taking in another entry fee to cover expenses and expand profit. Every half point, full point, or zero point bye is a decrease in rating expense, too.
As a director, the half point bye is a mixed blessing. Sometimes such byes help with pairings. Sometimes they add to the pairing headaches and tiebreak calculation problems. If given during the tournament, the director has to wait to do pairings until the last player trying to game the system decides to tell you that he wants to take a half point bye in the round he chooses. Preferable is to have all such bye requests made at registration or, at the latest, after round 1. In short tournaments of 4 or 5 rounds, any requests later than that are asking for trouble and complaints from other players who know what the other guy is doing in order to get a prize.
As a player, the strategic use of half point byes can be tremendous help in earning a prize. As long as don’t care about winning the tournament, about class norm titles, or rating points, these half point byes can be important. There are several ways to use these byes. First, it may help to get easier pairings, though I have seen this backfire. Second, I have seen players observe who is playing in an event in order to determine if they want to enter, or figure out how to avoid playing the probable winner of an event. After seeing a particular GM enter one event, several players sitting on the sidelines entered, requested half point byes in round 1 or round 3, trying to guarantee winning one of the place prizes. It worked, too, as the loser of the top board game in the last round was out of the money, while some half point bye recipients slid into the 2nd through 4th place prizes without facing significant opposition. Third, if you don’t like to play round 3 because it starts so late or it means that you will get home after midnight, taking a half point bye in this round will save energy, give you a chance to get a good night’s sleep, and enhance your prospects on Sunday morning. That is especially important if round 4 starts early. Sleep deprivation is almost like losing a pawn or a piece. Even the strongest coffee is not enough to overcome the lack of sleep. Fourth, if the section is big enough, that half point bye in the last round might help you to secure a prize. It is a risk, but if you have a penchant for over pressing, the half point bye allows you to satisfice. This works out well for some class players who know they might get their brains beaten out by a much higher rated player in the last round costing them a prize and leaving them depressed about the whole tournament experience. Getting a chance to wait to take a half point bye is great as you can watch what other people are doing and assess how well you are playing before making the request. This a good way to play the system.
People can, indeed, be very creative in figuring out ways to game the system. …In this case it was a class tournament, and the player who wanted to rescind his requested zero point last round bye was completely out of the running for any prize. He just wanted to play the game.
. Don’t be that guy/gal.