Here’s a general situation I’ve seen at least three times now.
Event is a weekly club swiss of 4 rounds. Bye policies have varied but generally allow 1/2-pt byes (even unrequested) in the first two rounds and no 1/2-pt byes in the last two rounds. The player, who is in contention for prizes, shows up late to a round in the latter-half of the event. The TD is able to find that late player a game against a non-event player or the bye-player. The game obviously counts for rating purposes. But for tournament standing purposes? What would you do - given some variations?
a) would you count the game no matter what?
b) would you give him a zero-pt. bye no matter what, and put this game in an extra games section?
c) would you count the game if his opponent would have possessed a similar or higher rating to what he would have played had he showed up on time?
d) would you vary it by giving him a 1/2-point for a win against the bye-player, and 0-points for a draw/loss?
e) would you give him a 1/2-point bye no matter what for showing up ten minutes past round time, despite it going against the bye policy stated above (and seemingly the USCF rule below) - except for the fact that he is playing that round - sorta?
f) how would things change if it had been the first two rounds, especially if the expected pairing were similar to what he might have ordinarily been given rating-wise?
g) if the player had no chance for prizes, would that change your bookkeeping at all?
h) how would you go about it best diplomatically, esp. if your club has no clear policy on that?
i) if nothing had been told the late player before he started his game, does that complicate the issue in any way?
Most relevant rule seems to be 28K, but not overly helpful for weekly events. The key word seems to be “incovenient”, TD’s prerogative.
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.
Fairness obviously dictates to me that he can’t get a full-point from playing the late game; you can’t profit by your crimes (showing up late). An exception might be that his opponent would have the same or better rating had he been paired. I’d probably default to choice C; pick D if that weren’t applicable; if it were weeks 1-2, I might even grudgingly allow A; and finally I would probably not let situation I color my decision, explaining that he forfeited all rights by showing up late and that we did the best to improvise as fairness allowed.
I think it’s pretty clear. The game can’t count for tournament purposes, and the player has to take a forfeit (I’d prefer to say “unplayed game”). Otherwise, it’s completely unfair to others who were in prize contention but didn’t get to pick their opponents. One assumes that this player knew the rules, so he should be pleased that he got a night of chess in at all. If he’s out of the money, then it doesn’t matter so much, because the result of the game isn’t likely to affect the prize list. Note that none of this depends of the strength of the house player. The only time I would consider the strength of the house player is in the situation where a player would ordinarily have a (full point) bye but agrees to play a house player much stronger than would normally be allowed in his section. In that case, it is reasonable to give the player a bye and not count the game for prize purposes where if the house player were lower rated it would be reasonable to make the game a part of the tournament.
As to your last question, I’m a bit confused. Surely something was said to the late arriving player. He must have had the impression that either the game mattered for prize purposes or it didn’t. If he was given the former impression, then it is a bit harder to change things after the fact.
Well, however ‘fair’ you think your interpretation may be, it doesn’t strictly follow the rules. The USCF rule I cited cleary says the tournament director “may” pair the late entrant if it isn’t inconvenient. I appreciate your input, however. It’s definitely a choice I’ve considered preferring as well. This rule could probably use some tightening. Mr. Just?
No reason to be confused, what I reported was correct, nothing was said to the late player, other than the arranging of finding an available opponent. At least two of the times I saw it, the director was also playing (it was a club event) and for better or for worse nothing was said beforehand. To my knowledge the director has allowed the game to count in all three instances. Furthermore, it has been complicated because the playing director has also been in contention for prizes, so forfeiting the late entrant for the round raises conflict-of-interest issues.
I think that the rule is intended to apply to people late for the first round of the tournament, and not for a late round, where it might be to the player’s advantage to show up after the round has started.
This is a reason why I prefer not to play in events that I direct.
Send your proposed wording to tighten this rule up to the Rules Committee. The wording looks OK to me and is flexible, exactly what was intended.
To deal with your situation someone needs to file a complaint if they fail to win a prize due to the “late” player’s game counting towards prizes (as per the publicity–that is the key; i.e., how was it advertised?). That is a real pain but IMHO would be upheld.
At our club if you don’t phone or check in with the TD by a designated time, too bad–you don’t get paired and any game you play is in the “extra games” section. IMHO: the situation you are dealing with just encourages players to be late.
There is no outside publicity. I think the prize fund might be per club statute like 60% of entries collected to first place or something. Maybe tightening the rule with regards to the playing director. The director has to be objective, but he has to make a personal decision on whether someone’s late entry (a potential rival) is an inconvenience or not. The language could explicitly state, if flexibility is the intent (perhaps as a TD tip): “Sometimes the policy of one TD will be to allow all games to count towards prize purposes whereas the policy of another is to always give late entrants zero-point byes. Either policy is condoned by this rule.”
How does someone know if they were affected or not? The rule appears to allow the TD to do whatever the TD wants. On what grounds can someone make a claim, if what the director is doing is legal? If there are, indeed, grounds, is being paired against the player who might have had .5-1 points less sufficient, or do they just have to finish behind that player? How many players can submit this claim?
Well, it does seem to make a point of saying “any round” when it could have stipulated the first round. And there is no doubt this is a clear example against the playing director. Well, I think the lesson I am learning from this is to make sure I have a clear policy announced for this scenario for any event I direct, especially if I play in them.
So, just to make sure, Mr. Just, the USCF rulebook gives the TD/Organizer complete latitude to decide any of the above choices A-E, even if some seem more fair than the others, correct? None of them are prohibited per se?
Tim is correct (as usual). In my opinion, the important issue in a weekly event is the policy on pairings and late players. Some events do the pairings days in advance, and allow late players a specific amount of time to play or be forfeited. Others wait to see who is present 5 minutes before the scheduled start of the round and pair only the players present.
So…what was the policy in this event, and exactly HOW late was the player? 5 min? 20 min? 45min? 59min? 61min?
I will assume 2-3 things here. 1) That pairings are made on the night of the round. 2) that we are talking (rounds 3-5) later rounds of the event. 3) That for some reason the TD or club has a policy of only pairing players that are present or have called to confirm they will be there.
Based on all of this the TD should make a definite announce at the start of the tournament as to the policy that will be used for late arrivals. Such announcements [like use of accelerated pairings] are allowed by the USCF rules provided they don’t violate USCF rules. I think that if we were talking about the final round, then the player(s) should be paired even if they are not present. Remember there are many things [flat tire, accident, bad traffice, etc.] that could cause a player to show up late. A number of contact people [not just the TD] should be available for any player to use to confirm that they will play on a specific night.
Personally when I use to run weekly club events I would allow a few nights for make-up games and adjournments. Also, I would allow for games to be played outside the club if both players agree. Games outside the club would require a score sheet with the result clearly marked, signed and agreed to by both players. The big problem with this was that a 5 round tournament could take up to 9 weeks to finish. I avoided the tournaments going 10 weeks by waiting until after the 2nd round for any adjounments or make-up games to be played. I quite often had players with byes in the first or second round, as well as players playing their Rd2 game before their Rd1 game.
If anyone has ever played their rook to d2, and only later played it to d1, please post the game here, so that we can analyze it and contribute further to this discussion.
This happens in reverse in the Sicilian where Black may play (after a6 and b5) Ra8 - a7 - d7 and could later play it back to d8. Can’t think of an example from the White side offhand, though.
Some of the other tournament directors in our club discussed this. We appreciated the flexibility Tim Just appeared to authorize both here in this thread and in the original rules, while we also stuck to his recommendation which was more conservative . Bottom line, we wanted something in writing. We ended up with this:
“Unless the round is subsequently re-paired, late entrants for the weekly tournament are granted a half-point bye if one is allowed during that round. Otherwise, the late entrant receives a zero-point bye. The late entrant may then play a rated game against another available player that is recorded in an extra-rated games section. The entry fee remains the same.”
For a generic weekly event with small prizes does anyone see a pitfall in this wording? Thanks, Ben
Does a player have to be at the site at the time the round is paired or can they simply call the TD (cell phones!!) by some appointed time and still get paired, but lose the time they are late? Of course any player that calls and does not show would not be able to do that again.
Cell phone calls and email are acceptable but players wishing to register that way are on their own risk if for some reason the communication breaks down or was not received in time and they do not show up on time. I think that’s in the club tournament rules, if not, it is at least long-standing practice and mostly common sense. Late is in the dictionary and the context, if not clear, is to the end of registration. Probably not worth the trouble to reword but give me a challenging case if you want
