There were 1 master (2450) and 4 experts (2158, 2155, 2099, 2000), 8 A players and other 37 players in one section. 1st place gets $500, 2nd place $300.
John (2099) took a half bye at 3rd round. Since he was half point shorter than other experts, he natually avoided to bump with the master. So he took last two games easily to achieve 4.5, a clear #2. He played 1A, 2 Bs and 1C with the opponent’s average rating of 1716.
Paul (2155) went all the way up before being crashed by the master. He played 1 master, 2As, 1B and 1C. Same on-board score as John (4.0) but with much higher opponents’ average rating(1901). His performance should be better than John by all means, but with half point shy, he left empty-handed.
Question: Should John be awarded by taking a whole night break watching football games?
I believe that Half-bye should be used for player’s convenience only, not for prize purpose. It would be fair to distribute 2nd place prize ($300) among John (4.5) and other 5 players (4.0) with same on-board score.
If you are not going to use the half point bye for prize purposes, then what is the use of having it? Basically, you are saying that the player should get a zero. If you want to do that, don’t allow bye’s in your tournaments.
There is nothing wrong with what happened here. In this case, with 50 players and a 5 round swiss, there would be a chance that the master and an expert would have ended 5.0, and the expert who took the bye would have been down in 3rd.
Instead of taking the half point bye it was possible that John could have gotten an OTB draw and still ended up with the same score. Therefore I am not sure that one can say that he benefitted from the night off.
This discussion has been around since the introduction of the half point bye back in the 70’s. Based on the popularity of offering the requested bye, I doubt that there are many players who have a major problem with a player using this strategy for an advantage.
That being said, for a player who skips a round an organizer can for pairing purposes pair the player as if he won or drew that round but for prize purposes score the round as a non result.
The TD certainly may do this, but it is a major variation from normal procedure, which should be announced in advance. (Offhand, I’d say the consequence of not doing so would be that the TD would get lynched.)
I don’t have a rule book handy, but I didn’t think this was considered a ‘major’ variation.
In order to stay in the running and have more appropriate pairings when I have missed a first round, I have requested that a TD pair my bye as a win. Especially when requested by the player with the bye, I don’t know who would want to lynch the TD.
In this case the player got rewarded for his choice of the round he took the 1/2 point bye. Just as often there is no reward.
One method of avoiding all of this gamesmanship is to require that 1/2 point byes be requested by the end of round 1. If you force a zero point bye on a player to avoid this gamesmanship then that player ends up in a scoregroup even easier for him than the scoregroup he gets paired in with the 1/2 point. Those players in that easier scoregroup will probably be real unhappy with this zero point, high rated player probably screwing up their chances for prizes.
I suppose you could use the 1/2 point bye for pairings but not for prizes; however, then the prize distribution algebra becomes even harder to calculate (mistakes of omission, …).
A “major variation,” like an impeachable offense, is largely in the eye of the beholder. The guiding principle, however, is that a major variation is one which would be likely to affect a player’s decision to enter the tournament. I think this qualifies.
If a player requests a half-point bye with the expectation that he will receive a half-point for that round, and at the end of the tournament the TD informs him that he really got a zero, I think many players would be upset. If you explain this to the player at the time he requests the bye, that’s another matter, though if he then asked for his EF back he would have a pretty good case.
In this case, perhaps one of the leading players. If you are correct in your calculation that pairing you as a win gives you some advantage over pairing you as a loss…that advantage must come from somewhere. Presumably, it comes from the poor schmuck who gets paired against you in the second round. He won, and deserves to “stay in the running and have more appropriate pairings” just as much as you do. Why do you get to decide that you should be paired up, while he must docilely accept being paired with a loser?
As a general rule, in my events the players do not get to make “helpful suggestions” on how they should be paired. There are really only two cases: 1) it doesn’t really matter, or 2) it makes a big difference, and I see no reason for angle-shooting scum to gain an advantage by trying to control my pairings.
I am at a bit of a disadvantage here without my current and past editions of the rulebook. As I recall in the discussion of how to pair a player who ‘misses’ the first round and takes a half point bye he may be paired as having won the game. I am not sure who is scum, the player who makes the simple request to be paired as a win or the TD who whould be offended by someone thinking outside of the box.
I guess I don’t see what is inappropriate for the highest or one of the highest rated players in a tournament with a first round bye requesting that he be paired as if he won the game. Just as in the case when a player request to not be paired against certain individuals the TD has the choice to honor or not honor the request.
Whether the request is granted or not, calling such a player “scum” seems inappropriate. I’d save such insults for more deserving targets – sandbaggers for example. Instead of trying to get unfairly WEAK opponents (like a sandbagger would), he’s trying to get a STRONGER opponent.
IMHO, there’s nothing wrong with a high rated player making a REQUEST to be paired against an opponent that won the first game. I’d be inclined to reject such a request, but the idea is worth thinking about. By playing a winner, he’d have an opponent closer to his own rating and more likely to beat him. It seems rather unfair to the lower rated players who were likely to have lost the first round to have to play a much higher rated player in the second round as well. It seems to me that that would have a pretty negative effect on the lower rated player’s chance for a class prize.
There seems to be no such language in the current edition.
28K. Late entrants. The director may accept and pair entrants after the announced closing time for registration, but late entrants shall forfeit any round missed if it is inconvenient or too late to pair the players for play, or may take a half-point bye (22C) if the tournament offers them for that round.
I repeat my earlier point: There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these variant systems of treating half-point byes, but they are nonstandard, and should be announced in advance unless you really like having fights with players.
I agree that he can request it. For that matter, he can request a full point by if he wants…doesn’t mean he’s getting it.
However, it may be more unfair to the winner of the first round whom he’s paired against because it could affect his tiebreaks. His second round opponent may have beaten someone with a score of 1 instead of 1/2 after two rounds but he didn’t get the opportunity which he earned by winning the first game.
Most of the problems can be avoided by having early deadlines as to when byes (in the later rounds) can be requested. Something like this:
Round 1: Before pairings are made (or may be assigned to players arriving late).
Round 2: Before pairings are made.
Round 3: Before the start of round 2.
Rounds 4-5: Before the start of round 3.
Deadline for un-requesting a previously requested bye: Same as above.
A policy like this need not be announced in pre-event publicity (at least not for small tournaments), but should be posted at the site throughout registration, and should remain posted throughout the tournament.
Precisely because of this issue, I started disallowing a bye for the last round of a 4 round monthly tournament. I imagine if the tournament were longer I would disallow byes in the last two rounds.
My rationale is that, for prize contenders, the last couple of rounds should be the hardest, as they are playing against the people who have done the best in the tournament. They shouldn’t just get an easy 1/2 point while trying to avoid being paired with tough opposition, and at the same time perhaps guaranteeing prize money.
On the other hand, strong players who request a bye in earlier rounds are probably hurting themselves.
Also, since I think byes are just to help with the pairings and should not count for prizes (mostly), a bye in the last round is useless, as there is no next round where it would matter.
In most of our tournaments byes can be requested for any round but no changes are permitted after the start of round 1. That ensures that byes are used for reason of player convenience, not for strategical purposes.
The assertion that a half point bye is just to help with the pairings strikes me as odd. Since they are requested by the players, not the TD, this makes no sense. In fact, they are just as likely to mess up the pairings, particularly in small sections. They can cause a full point bye to be awarded when otherwise there would be none.
Most of the weekend tourneys here are sectioned by class. This leads to a lot of 8-12 player sections. With the 2-day and 3-day options, I’ve seen sections with 1 bye Friday night, 1 bye Saturday morning, and 2 half point bye. Then in subsequent rounds there is always an odd number of half point byes and a full point bye. There’s one guy I hardly see even when we play the same events. He plays Sat AM and takes a Sat night bye, I play Fri night and take a Sunday morning one. Two rounds we play at the same time.
And don’t even get me started on re-entries in small events with 2 and 3 day sections and half point byes.
