This is only my second tournament as TD. My first was a round robin. This one is a double round robin. Specifically, it’s 3 double quads – 3 groups of 4 people playing each other as white and black – 6 games per quad.
I have no software; I used paper to submit my last tournament.
What’s the standard way to submit a double round robin’s results?
uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php … 1-12313120
There is nothing wrong sending in a tournament report on paper, in my judgement, working with paper is faster and cheaper in the short term then the computer disk.
Go and get copies at uschess.org/about/forms/Quad … esults.pdf
Go and get a copy at uschess.org/about/forms/00tmtrep.PDF as this will give you the official tournament report form.
Simplest way is to treat each section as a six-round swiss, one wallchart sheet per section. I’m pretty sure this is how they will end up inputting it anyway, so trying to get fancy will just delay things.
The important thing to remember is that you want all of the games played by each group of four in the same section, so that they are rated as a single block of games.
That can be done as John as suggested, by treating each section as a six round event with four participants. That’s probably the most straight-forward and common way of doing it.
Another equally valid way of entering it would be as a three round event with eight players, each USCF id appearing twice.
Yet another would be to combine all of the players and games into one big section. I suspect that would be more work for you to do and more prone to lead to an error, too.
The online data entry form for the new ratings system will permit it to be entered as a double round robin. (# represents a W+D, $ represents W+W.)
John is right, you could make a single section for one tournament. Then you would need to make your own home made paper crosstable. You could use the idea of Mike with the Swiss crosstables, would only have 2 sections not 3 sections. The rating department still could rate the sections out of order, as section 1,2, could be rated as 2,1.
I take it from your replies that there is no standard way.
I was thinking about submitting 6 round robin forms (3 quads x 2 rounds).
Would that be bad?
I, too had an idea like nolan’s
Nolan said
Is this yet to come or available now?
There are a number of administrative issues that need to be resolved before we can start uploading events and rating them on the new system. Obviously we didn’t make my original goal which was to start some kind of public or beta testing in September.
Here are my thoughts on ordering of events when rating them.
If two independent events have the same starting and ending date, there’s no best way to order them, any order will be arbitrary (and will probably upset SOMEONE.)
The question of what order to rate sections in is a sticky one. I’m continually surprised by the number of complaints we get about it, usually from people who think they would benefit from having sections rated in some different order.
Suppose there are two sections in an event but no overlap between sections. It won’t make any difference which order they’re rated in.
However, suppose one of the players played in both sections. The order in which they’re rated could make a difference in the final post-event rating for that player, which in turn could have a small impact on the post-event rating for the other players.
But if both sections were played at the same time, there is NO BEST ORDER in which to rate them. However, there needs to be SOME order, if only for consistency.
The current system orders them by event ending date (actually by the event ID which consists of the event ending date and a three digit number assigned sequentially) and by increasing section number order within an event. That means that section 1 always gets rated before section 2, etc.
The new system will order sections by SECTION ending date, section beginning date and finally by section number order.
So, if there are four sections:
Section 1 is a Saturday-Sunday event
Section 2 is held on Saturday only
Section 3 is held on Sunday only
Section 4 is held on Saturday and Sunday
The current software would rate them in 1-2-3-4 order
The new software would rate these sections in this order 2-1-4-3.
If done in ‘quote’ would have one tournament with three sections. If you report with the six quads, you would have one tournament with six sections. The only standard, would be the standard the director would report the event.
The important question, how you want the players to view this tournament in the players MSA history. They can view their MSA history, as one tournament with six sections, or one tournament with three sections, or one tournament with one section. If you want it to be one tournament with one section, then you would need to make you’re own personal crosstables.
I see the wisdom 
in reporting the results as a 6 round swiss with 3 sections. This would avoid any weird ordering issues and be simple to write down and unambiguous to understand.
My remaining question is this: Will the USCF ratings folks balk when they see each player playing another twice? That’s not supposed to happen in a swiss but that’s the way I’d wind up reporting it, given that in each quad, each person played the other 3 people twice.
I don’t want my tournament report to be rejected on a technicality.
Over the years, the USCF ratings staff has seen everything. Something as easy as this certainly will not faze them.
Bill Smythe
No. It’s quite possible to play someone twice in a swiss, just doesn’t happen very often. (This is what SwissSys does with a double-rr/ss, by the way – it formats the rating report as a single-ss of twice as many rounds.)
The rating department would have little problem. If you think there would be a problem, then have the tournament be a six section quad. It would effect you’re ‘tournament directors history’ and the ‘players tournament history’ – in the MSA information on you, also the players in the tournament. The tournament will be rated, how you want the sections too be rated is all up too the director.
Thank you, all, for your input. 