Fellow TD’s,
In a 4 section tournament, if there are 3 “odd man out” players, should I pair (1 vs 2), (2 vs 3), (1 vs 3) or leave all 3 unpaired with full point byes?
Thanks in advance for your advice,
I’d give them all full point byes and ask them if they’d like to have an “extra” rated game. Hopefully 2 out of the 3 will want the extra game and everyone will be happy. If all three wanted it, I’d probably let the lower rated players have the game.
I’ve also seen directors count the “extra” game for prize purposes for the higher rated player but just award a full point bye for the lower rated player. IMO this is a bad idea, but I’ve seen it done.
If it were a smaller tournament you might want to try cross-round pairings to get rid of the byes. With a larger 4 section tournament, this might be too much trouble.
My general idea would be to put the lower rated player into the top section with an appropriate (usually zero) number of byes, and then pair that section normally. Then give that player a bye in his own section. That way everybody gets a game. Note that this would not necessarily match the two who would ordinarily have gotten the bye.
Of course your situation is a little different, with three odd players instead of two. I’d probably move the players as little as possible, so I’d move the middle player up to the top section. An exception might be if my available house player (I try to always have one) is rated too high to compete in the lower section. In that case, I would put the house player in the rating-appropriate section, and then move the other players around as necessary.
I don’t believe that anyone has the right to refuse to play a lower-rated player. As far as playing a higher rated player who wouldn’t have been allowed in the section that they signed up for, I usually ask if they’re willing to play up and get a full point in their section, and they usually agree. In fact I can’t think of a case where I was refused. These people didn’t come to watch, and if they can get the full point for prize purposes, they generally don’t mind playing (way) up. If they object, well, usually I have a house player I can insert.
Alex Relyea
I don’t think it’s fair to make the higher rated player’s result count and not count the lower rated player’s game. This isn’t fair to the higher rated player. The lower-rated player may play normally, but he may not. The lower rated player may try things he wouldn’t do in a normal game. It’s NOT the same situation that you’d have if the game counted for both players.
I also don’t think you should be able to REQUIRE that anyone play a game against someone NOT IN HIS SECTION OF THE TOURNAMENT.
I generally prefer giving multiple byes and having an extra games section. An alternative I’ve sometimes used is to list the game and result in the section of the winning player and list the bye in the losing player’s section (obviously won’t work if the game is a draw).
If it is a scholastic tournament then there are some considerations that might not occur for other tournaments.
-
It is less unlikely that the player from the “lower” section is actually higher rated than the player from the “higher” section.
-
If you list the game in a section and some teams have players in multiple sections then the team code of the out-of-section player may need to be blanked out. Otherwise there is a risk that the player’s teammates may now have enough players in that section for the software to recognize them as a team and eligible for team awards.
-
If there is a primary-player only section and a primary player has a cross-sectional matchup with a non-primary player, then the primary player will need to actually be a USCF member or the rating report checking will find an error. If you have multiple primary sections and primary players only have cross-sectional matchups with other primary players then you may find it better to have a primary-extra-games section and a non-primary-extra-games section.
There are three questions here: should you pair them, which ones should you pair, and should the results count in their sections. My policy is give each player the full point in his own section, but get everyone rated game if possible. (If you pair the lower-section player up, the results will usually work out this way without tinkering.) As to which ones you should cross-pair, in theory I like to match the ones who are closest in rating, though in practice it often depends on which sections finish first. Be reasonable about this – the point is not to “force” people to play (since everyone is getting a full-point bye in his own section); it’s to get as many players as possible a rated game.
Thanks guys;
I’ll give all 3 players 1 point byes, then if 2 of them want to play each other, I’ll create an extra games section (I use SwissSys) and let them play. If all 3 players want to play (gulp), I’m thinking that pairing the 2 players closest in rating is a great idea. Before asking the question in this forum I was leaning on pairing the 2 highest rated players. Would this be something worth putting in the ad, mentioning in the pre-tournament announcements, or just leave it alone unless the situation comes up?
Thanks again.
I wouldn’t bother with putting it in your ads. It is definately a case by case basis. However, you could put a notice up on the wall informing people of what the “odd player policy” will be.
Rob
Everyone has the right to take their bye, and not be forced to play the bye from another section. If the player accepts the opponent I don’t think he really cares where the game ends out for rating purposes. The only bad thing is when it’s in his own section because the player was lower rated, and he loses. (Been there, done that, watched TD fiddle with pairings in bottom score group to avoid giving me another bye. 
)
This seems reasonable with one small exception – if one of the players has a provisional rating then you should make sure he gets to play a game.
Agreed. Better would be to make the winner’s result count and not the loser’s. Wait till the game is over before deciding which wallchart to put it on. Add the loser’s name (and result) to the winner’s section. In the loser’s section give the loser a full-point bye.
Bill Smythe
Since the rules allow for a house man then you can use a bye in a lower section as the ‘house man’ for the higher section. I think the policy of repairing with the lower bye inserted is better. Players don’t have ‘rights’ to byes. If you can make pairings work with playing a player up they have to play. Whether you do it this way, is your call. Personally in my experience with a National TD directing our local tournaments, he would always pair the lower rated bye against the higher rated making it count in the higher rated bracket. Usually there was at least a 400 point rating difference though so it didn’t really matter that much, and I don’t think the lower rated ever won in the tourns I was in.
Nah. Just handle it case by case when it happens. And ask each player first, before forcing him to avoid the bye.
There are a whole bunch of ways to avoid byes – not only cross-section pairings, but also cross-round pairings (most likely to work in the lowest sections), house players, using the TD as a house player, etc. Just keep your eyes open for possibilities, and be flexible.
To keep the byed players from running away at the start of the round, instead of writing “bye” on the pairing sheet you can write “please wait” or “see TD”. This can be done in pairing software also.
Bill Smythe
As a practical matter, you generally don’t want to put the cross-pairing in the lower section because the player from the higher section will sort to the top of the wallchart.
If the player from the higher section always wins, why NOT just give him the full point and let him play an extra game if he wants?
I’m more used to class tournaments:
Recently I played in Class A and I would have received a bye in round 1. There were also an odd number of players in the Expert Class. The player that would get the Expert Class bye was also rated in Class A, but had decided to play up a section. I can’t see how it could have possibly been fair to count the game result for him, but give me the full point for a bye. As it happens, the NTD gave us both 1 point byes and let us play an extra game.
But you wouldn’t have played each other. If the TD gave you the bye for your section and moved you up to the Expert section for that game, then you would both been at the bottom of that section and in the first round would have both played someone just above the midpoint. The idea is that all the players in that section would have had reasonably normal pairings for the first round.
Martinak,
I’d have still been in a game with the result counting for my opponent and not for myself. That’s bound to lead to some inequalities. For example, I might decide to brush off that wild gambit I know and give it a try, since I literally couldn’t lose. Other players might play normally, but you can’t count on this. When the result only counts for one of the players, it can and WILL lead to inequalities.
This is different than a house man. The TD should know the house man, know how well he plays, and be able to count on getting a consistent, fair game from him in every game. A house man shouldn’t play normally in one game, wildly in another, and play give-away chess in a third game. But if you have three different players with “nothing to lose”, none of them known by the TD, that’s exactly what could happen. The players that would have gotten byes in the higher section may get totally different results.
The practice of cross-section pairings has been established for many years. When a section has an odd-number, the lowest ranked player is potentially assigned the bye. If the player wants the free point, he can just take it and leave and come back for the next round. The cross-section pairing occurs if two players in their respective sections do not want the bye. Many players would prefer a tournament game over the free point, especially at the end of the tournament, but they are not REQUIRED to be cross-paired against someone from another section. Sometimes only one of the two wants to play, which often results in 1-point byes for both. Sometimes both players start off eager to play instead of getting a bye. Then when the player in the higher section sees that his potential opponent is actually much lower rated, the player suddenly looks on him with disdain and backs out (evidently forgetting for a moment that the player himself is also the lowest-ranked player in his own section).
[quote=“tanstaafl”]
For example, I might decide to brush off that wild gambit I know and give it a try, since I literally couldn’t lose. Other players might play normally, but you can’t count on this. When the result only counts for one of the players, it can and WILL lead to inequalities.
[/quote
It’s my experience that cross-section pairings do not produce this type of result. But, for the argument’s sake, even if this did happen, the player who is the recipient of the “gift” point from an otherwise unconcerned opponent was already going to receive the free point from the bye otherwise. One could also just as easily speculate whether or not even the same player would be more likely to play in a more unusual or speculative manner at the end of the tournament, when he is out of the running for prizes, than he did at the beginning of the tournament, when he was still in contention. Some people withdraw from the tournament the moment they are out of the running; others want to play all the games, even if they’re not exactly sure what their opponents’ own motivations are.
Smythe,
Pardon my ignorance, but how do cross-round pairings work (I don’t have a USCF rulebook with me, but if it’s explained in there, let me know.)
Thanks
Actually this whole discussion is a fine addition to 28M (pg. 122) which is about alternatives to byes in the rulebook. 28M1 discusses the house player while 28M2 and 28M3 (pgs. 124-125) give the ins and outs of cross-round and cross-section pairings. 28M4 is a nice section on extra rated games.
Tim