I’m running a tournament with an “Open” and “Reserve” section with a 3 day and 2 day schedule. I have only 2 players in the “Reserve” section on the 3 day schedule. They played each other in Round 1. The 2 day and 3 day schedules do not merge until Round 3. What do I do for Round 2? Do they each get a 1 point Bye? I never encountered this situation before.
Ron
Ron Sanders Jr.
I think your only good choice is to pair them against each other again, colors reversed. If the score ends up 1-1, and depending on what the rest of the field looks like, you could consider putting both players in the 1.5 or 2.0 group post-merge for pairing and prize purposes.
Low turnouts often require stretching if not outright breaking the Swiss pairing rules.
You may have learned a lesson as an organizer about what ‘sells’ in your area, too.
Thank you Nolan for your perspective. You are right. I have learned a lesson this weekend. I’ll continue my journey to promote chess in my community as best as I can.
Ron
Ron Sanders Jr.
In the 2011 New England Open, there was also a 2 and 3 day schedule in the Open section. I don’t remember which schedule it was, but the only people to enter were an IM and an A player. Now that I think about it, it must have been the two-day. The merge was after round 3. The A player lost to the IM in the first round, and, perhaps realizing he would have to play the IM twice more, promptly withdrew. Fortunately, a strong expert was spectating, as his son was playing in the three day schedule. He agreed to be a house player and lost two games to the IM so that the IM wouldn’t get two full point byes. The New England Open hasn’t offered a two day schedule in the top section since.
Alex Relyea
Two other options:
Pair them into the Open section in round 2, then back into the Reserve thereafter.
Pair them into the 2-day schedule after round 1.
Both of these, of course, have disadvantages.
Bill Smythe
Pair them again. It’s what you would do if there were no other schedule(s).
And don’t worry too much. Stuff happens.
Without knowing round times, time controls and the relative strengths of the players in the two sections, I don’t know if Bill’s suggestions would even work, but they are worth considering.
I was thinking that the round times would probably be something along the lines of:
3-day:
round 1 6:30 pm Friday
round 2 10:00 am Saturday
round 3 4:00 pm Saturday
round 4 10:00 am Sunday
round 5 4:00 pm Sunday
2-day:
round 1 10:00 am Saturday
round 2 1:00 pm Saturday
then merge into 3-day beginning with round 3
– in which case it might work to ask the two players to play round 2 at 1:00 pm instead of 10:00 am. But they’d have to play at the faster control in round 2.
It might even be possible to give each of the two the option to play their round 2 game at either 10:00 am or 1:00 pm, again at the faster control. If one player chose 1:00 pm, it would be a cross-schedule pairing. If the other chose 10:00 am, it would be both a cross-schedule and a cross-round pairing.
Or, maybe give each player the option of a cross-schedule pairing (as above) or a cross-section pairing. The possibilities are endless.
Bill Smythe
That was exactly what happened last week in my event.
After Round 1, they were each given 1-point Byes and played “extra games” with other players who had byes.
Neither player wanted to play in the 2-day with the faster time-control, so it worked out fine for all.
I think playing the same player twice should be avoided completely…
Except for the people in the 2-day who are forced to add two people with too many points to their pool. I think this is a very poor solution.
Alex Relyea
Agreed. Admittedly there is no really good solution here, but this cure is worse than the disease. Under which rule are you awarding two full point byes to players in the same section? Remember, 27A1 does not say that you cannot pair the same players twice in a tournament. Pairing the two players against each other a second time with colors reversed is the least bad option.
Disagreed
There are many circumstances that factored into the decision, and primarily was to be the most fair to every player including the two in the three day section. While not “strictly prohibited” by the wording in the rule, the first priority is to never pair the same players twice in an event. There were strong objections by the players, so I think the most reasonable solution was used.
Other players in the two day were afforded an opportunity to cross-over, but none elected to do so.
There was an objection by the 3-day players to having to be forced to play under the faster time control of the 2-day. There were no objections from anyone, and I think the most fair outcome was achieved.
I was offering another option that could be used to the original poster.
It can depend on circumstances when a TD has to rule. Not everything is Black and White.
Relax and enjoy the day.
Mr. Rogers is, of course, entitled to his opinion, though I wonder if there is a single special referee who would have upheld it on appeal. A question: what would Mr. Rogers do if he were holding an eight round tournament and six players showed up?
Alex Relyea
I don’t see that he did anything WRONG, it might have been the way some TDs would have handled it, but you have to try to satisfy your players, too, and sometimes in low-turnout situations all the choices are bad.
You are correct that the highest priority in making Swiss pairings is not to pair the same player twice, but it not an absolute commandment. There are cases where you need to do it, whether you like it or not.
Assuming that your tournament offered 1/2 point byes, and that it was not too late to commit to them you might have offered the two players the chance to take 1/2 point byes for the tournament and play ERG’s if they so desired. In that case you would have been on solid ground with your ruling. As it transpired, had I been on an appeals committee, and had your decision to award these two players full point byes rather than pair them against each other a second time been appealed to me I would have voted to overturn your decision, and that would not have been a tough call.
Note that if one of the two players had opted for a 1/2 point bye then the other (even if 1-0) would have no opponent and get a full point bye. Allowing a 1/2 point bye for one of the two while the other gets a full point would seem likely to withstand any appeal.
Yes, that is certainly true. Unless one player would be willing to accept only a half point if the other player takes a half point you’re likely to have a situation where neither player will be willing to commit to a half point bye knowing that if he does the other player will get a full point bye, putting you back at square one.
If the option is to pair them against each other again then there is a decent chance that the lower rated will opt for a half-point bye.