Assume you have a 2-section tournament with prizes:
Open $400 b/20
Reserve $400 b/20
Suppose the Open draws 5 and the Reserve 15. I think that everyone would agree that the Reserve would pay $300 ($40015/20). The question that came up locally is how much the Open is require to pay. Is it $100 ($4005/20) or $200 (50%, since the tournament had total prizes over $500)?
The latter. You must pay at least 50% of each advertised prize. Now, if you had structured it as “$800 b/80,” you could have paid out $400 total, but by setting it up the way you did, you committed yourself to paying proportionately in each section, with a minimum of 50% in each.
Might depend on the exact wording of the TLA.
32D. Based-on options. If separate based-on goals are announced for different sections of an event, then each section is treated separately. If the based-on goal is announced for any combination of sections, then the sections involved are considered as a group.
With the wording you have given, it appears each section is being treated separately. Since each section is projected at less than $500.01, it seems to me that the 50% minimum does not apply. Looks like you’d be stuck with $100 in the Open and $300 in the Reserve.
If the wording had been “Open $$400, Reserve $$400, based on 40 players total”, then I would think the 50% minimum would apply to the whole tournament, but that all prizes in both sections would be proportional. In this case I think you’d be on the hook for $200 in the Open and $200 in the Reserve.
Bill Smythe
I strongly disagree. “Treated separately” should mean that you must pay at least 50% in each section. Your interpretation would allow an intolerable abuse of the system. If they are in the same TLA, they are two sections of one tournament, and the total prize fund was over $500.
Though it probably doesn’t apply in this case, the based on rules were changed in August.
I don’t have all the details handy, they should be in EBN #1 for 2004-05.
My understanding is that the sections may be treated separately, as provided by 32D (quoted by Bill). Neither section had a based on prize fund of over $500, therefore, each section would be reduced proportionally, with no 50% guarantee required. This is, as Bill said, dependant upon how the prize fund was advertised ($800b/40 would require the minimum 50%)
Terry
This means that TLAs which advertise a prize fund of more than $500, must include the words similar to “x-amount minimum guaranteed”, for example: “$800b/40 minimum 50% guaranteed”
The important words here are “total prize fund.” Total means total – you can’t evade this requirement by counting the section amounts individually. If you want to do that, you have to make them separate tournaments, with separate TLAs.
As I recall there was a second part to this (at least it was presented at the workshop in FLA), which eliminated ‘based on’ prizes if the total advertised prize fund is $10K or more.
You haven’t convinced me yet, John. If your interpretation is correct, what then is the intent and purpose of 32D? If your interpretation is correct, then 32D is redundant in lieu of 32C4. I believe, clearly, that 32D is an allowable exception to the 50% payout rule.
You said:
If that’s true, then there is no need for the redundancy of 32D, as this is conveyed in 32C4. No, I don’t believe that 32D is a redundant rule, nor is it a clarification of 32C4. It is, rather, an acceptable exception.
Terry Winchester
Well it looks like the same disagreement that we had here in Pittsburgh. I felt that the section should pay 50% of the prizefund. Looking at the various relevant delegate motions, it seemed to me (while I wasn’t at the meeting so this is a judgement) that the spirit of the motion was to require 50% based upon the entire prize fund of the tournament. After hearing the other side, I can see that a possible interpretation of the rulebook would allow the 25% payment (though I’m not sure that is the only interpretation possible). So, one question is whether the rulebook implements the delegate motions correctly.
I believe the purpose of the changes last August was to clarify some issues in the rulebook, in part as a result of some rather sticky rulings that had to be made. Whether it succeeded in offering any clarity is a somewhat different issue. :-}
If your interpretation is correct, what then is the intent and purpose of
32D? If your interpretation is correct, then 32D is redundant in leiu of
32C4. I believe, clearly, that 32D is an allowable exception to the 50%
payout rule.
32D seems necessary to allow different sections to pay at different rates. Otherwise couldn’t players in the least populated sections argue that they deserve the overall average. It would be necessary even if there was no 50% rule.
For example,
Open $400 b/20 10 show up
Reserve $400 b/20 20 show up
Without this rule, couldn’t those in the Open argue that they deserve 75% rather than 50%? While those in the reserve will want 100%.
One other thing, 32D says that “each section is treated separately”. It doesn’t say that “each section is treated as a separate tournament”. While the 50% rule refers to “tournaments”.
Tom,
The rest of the rule (32D) says, and in my opinion clairifies the intent of this rule, that: “If the based-on goal is announced for any combination of sections, then the sections involved are considered as a group”. I read this to clarify that if, for example, you advertised $800b/40, you would then be bound by 32C4.
Terry
I attended a Minnesota State Chess Association board meeting last Fall in which Dave Kuhns explained this change to the rules. It was my understanding at that meeting that this rule was primarly aimed at the advertising of tournaments. It was intended to make TDs and organizers a bit more honest in their advertising. For example, they know that 100 players won’t show up, but they advertise $5000 B/100, knowing that they only need to pay $2500 if 50 players show up. In effect, the advertising makes it look like it should be a bigger tournament than it likely ever will be.
After reading this current discussion about several sections of a tournament with each having “based on” prizes, it seems to me that it was possibly unintended in the new rule to lump these sections together and speak of “prize total”. It would seem to me that the phrase “required to pay at least 50% of any based on advertised prize if the total prize fund is $500 or above” is referring to a single tournament section, and not the sum of multiple separate sections. I have a hunch that Dave Kuhns or Tim Just did not had the current examples in mind when they presented this new rule.
Just me $0.02.
Regards,
Tom Ewers
Doesn’t that section simply refer to cases such as:
Open, Reserve $800 b/40, $400 each
Booster, Premier $400 /20, $200 each
So the Open and Reserve are Group 1 paying out the same percentage regardless of distribution of entries over those 2 sections. And the Booster and Premier are a Group 2 paying out some different percentage over both of those sections. In this case the question is whether Group 2 must pay out at least 50%. It uses the terminology “group”, but again avoids saying that the groups should be treated as separate tournaments. While 32C4 consistently refers to tournaments and their advertised prize funds (which will often include more than just the based-on prizes for a section/s).
I think that both of these interpretations of the rulebook are valid - though they are definitely inconsistent. So, we probably need to figure out the intent of the delegate motion. And then presumably rewrite the rules so as to be consistent with that intent and eliminate the interpretation that is not consistent with that intent. Having 32D use the phrase “each section or group of sections should be treated as a separate tournament”, would do that - if that was the intent of the delegates.
The rulebook was probably based on the original delegate motion from 1999:
“Effective January 1, 1999, all tournaments without exception advertised in Chess Life, Tournament Life, or elsewhere shall be required to pay at least 50% of any based-on prize advertised if the prize fund is over $500. Based-on prizes in tournaments with an advertised total prize fund of $500 or less must be paid in proportion to turnout.”
It seemed to me that the only change from last year was in how based on prize funds were advertised - making some additional requirements.
If your (and Bill’s) interpretation were the correct one, it would mean that an organizer could hold a tournament with 10 sections, each with a prize fund of “$500 b/x.” He would thus be able to advertise a prize fund of $5000 and guarantee nothing. I assure you that this was not what the Delegates had in mind.
It appears to me that 32D should be interpreted in exactly the opposite manner – as an additional restriction on the abuse of based-on prizes. If you treat them separately (“based-on” a certain number in each section), you must pay proportionately in each section as well as paying at least 50% of every advertised prize.
That’s correct. The changes last year were intended to tighten the restrictions in response to some abuses. Note also that the original version of this (which goes back to around 1983) said you had to pay 50%, period. The “$500 exception” was pushed through at a later date by the little-organizer lobby.
It is important to realize that, while the Delegates did approve the 5th-edition Rulebook as a package, they most certainly did not read and study each paragraph first. Even if, arguendo, 32D was intended by its author to loosen the based-on restrictions, this was clearly not the intention of the Delegates. In the absence of “plain language,” principles of statutory interpetation require going back to “legislative intent.” The wording of last year’s amendments, even though they are not strictly on point, makes that pretty obvious.
Nice catch on how to circumvent the spirit of the rule! The cure is simple; i.e., some delegate needs to make a motion to fix this loophole. Or, someone can submit new wording to the Rules committee directly. Here is some suggested wording:
32D1. Based-on sections. If separate based-on goals are announced for different sections of an event when the prize fund for each section is $500 or less and the total prize fund of the combined sections is greater than $500, the organizer must pay out at least 50% of the announced prize fund for each section.
Feel free to edit the wording in 32D1 to close any other loopholes that Dan Burg and I may have missed when we worked on 32D several eons ago.
Tim Just