The stated intent of pairing teammates in plus-two groups is to avoid giving those players an unfair advantage in the individual standings. Going by that, I think I’d have to pair Cathy and Deirdre, so as not to give Cathy an unfair advantage. But if you’re looking for an objective rule to follow, then you could probably justify (c) - Cathy has left the 3.0 group and you’re not dealing with a plus-two group any more.
To me, this gets into a gray area where it’s difficult to consistently apply 28N1 (plus two), and you start getting into 28N4 (the TD decides if it’s fair). But then what other factors should be considered - individual standings? team standings? The irony in this particular example is that by pairing Cathy and Deirdre, so as not to give Cathy an advantage, you’re actually giving her a fighting chance. If you go by ratings, Cathy has very little chance against Ellen. Of course, Ellen may be having a bad day …
If we’re using plus two, 28N1a says “If a scoregroup can be paired among itself without players from the same team facing each other, this should always be done.” You could possibly argue that since you have to drop down a player, you could also consider 2.5 as part of an “extended” scoregroup.
Ann vs Barbara and Cathy vs Deirdre are the natural pairings, if you don’t consider teams. IMVHO this is preferable to re-pairing the top players just so the rule can be applied.
I think you’re reading the rule far too literally. In pairing any score group, you have to be mindful of the consequences for your ability to pair other score groups. If the rule book had to repeat that every time it stated what pairings would be desirable, it would be unreadable. Besides, pairing the 3.0 scoregroup includes the decision about whom to drop, so IMO you can’t pair the 3.0’s among themselves if the consequence is an incorrect drop choice.
I understand the point that you can’t pair a scoregroup in isolation without considering the rest of the pairings. If pairing Ann and Cathy (significantly?) improves the pairings of the other scoregroup(s), then by all means we need to do that.
I’m just trying to understand why
Ann vs Cathy
Barbara vs Deirdre
is better than
Ann vs Barbara
Cathy vs Deirdre
If you look at the top 5 players:
Ann, Team A, 3.0
Barbara, Team B, 3.0
Cathy, Team A, 3.0
Deirdre, Team A, 2.5
Ellen, Team C, 2.0
If you look at those players, and decide that, in the spirit of 28N, two of the Team A’s need to be paired, then why don’t we just use the natural pairings? Isn’t the fact that Cathy herself is plus two enough to justify that? Ann vs Cathy just seems contrived, to get around the fact that the plus two rule doesn’t specifically address the case of an odd player with a teammate in the next scoregroup.
I’m not trying to argue the point. I’m just trying to learn, and understand Tom’s and Tim’s points of view. To be honest, I would have stared at this a very long time, and it never would have entered my head to pair Ann and Cathy. I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to pair them if it were necessary to make the colors acceptable for the other scoregroups, for example, but, but …
In general, the two most important rules governing Swiss pairings are:
Players don’t play each other twice
Players play in their scoregroup if possible, and if, not, as close as possible to their scoregroup.
Everything else (color, ordering within the score group) is secondary to those. If you add the restriction that teammates not be paired, it falls as 1a; if you have to blow apart scoregroups to prevent teammates from being paired, you do it.
As a result, I don’t see the 28N1a as being a “spirit” thing. +2 means +2. A player who is 2.5-1.5 (or worse) should not play a teammate unless the alternative is to violate cardinal rule #1.
Thanks for your explanation, Tom. I understand completely; it just took me a while. It helps me to think in terms of selecting the best odd player. If you drop Cathy down and it causes problems, then you need to try dropping a different player. The interesting part comes when you have to listen to Team A’s coach …
The logic in Ann-vs-Cathy and Barbara-vs-Deirdre seems bizarre, but now that I think about it, it’s true. Of the three team-A players, the one who has the strongest claim against being paired with a teammate is Deirdre, since she’s not plus-two.
Remember that this logic comes into play only because we changed the assumptions. In the original case, the top scoregroups were 4.0 and 3.5, rather than 3.0 and 2.5, and all four players were plus-two. Ann-vs-Cathy is being suggested only in the revised case of 3.0 and 2.5. You’d be listening to team A’s coach under circumstances very different from the original.
