In Swiss tournaments, can a player ever have the same color three times in a row? I think I remember reading somewhere that preventing that situation overrides all other considerations when doing pairings. Please confirm or deny that I’m going senile/crazy/making things up. 
Thanks!
It is possible?!
29E5f. Colors in a series.
No player shall be assigned the same color three times in a row, unless there is no other reasonable way to pair the score group or unless necessary to equalize colors.
Pairing within the scoregroup takes priority over avoiding three in a row. One reason for confusion is that an earlier edition of the rulebook took the opposite position, but this was soon overturned by the Delegates. I find it hard to visualize a situation in which you would have to assign three in a row to equalize colors, but I suppose it’s possible in a very long tournament.
I think that THE most important consideration is to keep players meeting for the second time. Of course that goes out the window if the number of rounds is greater than the number of players.
I’m mindful of a tournament that Mike Nolan mentioned (no doubt on a similar topic) in which Black won every single game for the first two rounds. Needless to say, on the top boards some people had a third Black in a row. I’ve never seen anyone avoid three Whites in a row.
Alex Relyea
Hmm… so I could still get screwed to keep the score group together. 
In the case of the tournament that I ran where Black won every game in the first two rounds, I called the 2 point score group together (there were 4 of them, as I recall) and explained the situation, then suggested that given the way the first two rounds had gone getting Black in round 3 might almost be an advantage.
My club had one blitz tournament (non-rated) where there were 10 rounds and 16 players (of which a few dropped out before the 10th round). In the tenth round the most reasonable pairing was for the leaders to play each other again rather than playing down through 6 or 8 other score groups.
There was also a rated 27-section scholastic 5-round swiss where one of the (rating-based) sections had only 4 players. Since the team trophies were divisional and each division spanned 9 sections, reducing that section to a 3-round quad could have adversely impacted the team scores of the teams the players were on, so the 4 players each played two other players twice and the third one once.
In a small tournament – even one not so small so that the number of rounds is barely bigger than the number of players – it is often advisable to make some of the colors NOT work in the early odd-numbered rounds (such as round 3).
Alternating all colors in every round has the effect of dividing the players into two camps, those who started with white and those who started with black, and making inter-camp pairings exclusively, with no intra-camp pairings. Eventually, in a small tournament, there will be a shortage of possible inter-camp pairings, so that intra-camp pairings will become necessary. When this happens, it’s better if it happens in an odd-numbered round, where color alternation is the issue rather than color equalization.
For example, let’s look at your basic 16-player, 4-round “theoretical” tournament (no draws, no upsets, no byes or forfeits):
rd1 rd2 rd3 rd4 colors cumulative
01 W09 W06 W04 W02 wbwb 1,2,3,4
02 W10 W05 W03 L01 bwbw 1,2,3,3
03 W11 W08 L02 W06 wbwb 1,2,2,3
04 W12 W07 L01 W08 bwbw 1,2,2,3
05 W13 L02 W09 W07 wbwb 1,1,2,3
06 W14 L01 W10 L03 bwbw 1,1,2,2
07 W15 L04 W11 L05 wbww 1,1,2,2
08 W16 L03 W12 L04 bwbb 1,1,2,2
09 L01 W14 L05 W13 bwbb 0,1,1,2
10 L02 W13 L06 W12 wbww 0,1,1,2
11 L03 W16 L07 W14 bwbw 0,1,1,2
12 L04 W15 L08 L10 wbwb 0,1,1,1
13 L05 L10 W16 L09 bwbw 0,0,1,1
14 L06 L09 W15 L11 wbwb 0,0,1,1
15 L07 L12 L14 W16 bwbw 0,0,0,1
16 L08 L11 L13 L15 wbwb 0,0,0,0In the above example, the TD (or pairing program) has made the usual color transpositions in rounds 2 and 3, and all of the colors have “worked” so far. But in round 4, in the 2-point group, there is no reasonable way to avoid bad colors on two of the three boards.
If, instead, transpositions had been made only to equalize (but not merely to alternate) colors, rounds 3 and 4 would have fallen into place naturally:
rd1 rd2 rd3 rd4 colors cumulative
01 W09 W06 W03 W02 wbwb 1,2,3,4
02 W10 W05 W04 L01 bwbw 1,2,3,3
03 W11 W08 L01 W07 wbbw 1,2,2,3
04 W12 W07 L02 W06 bwwb 1,2,2,3
05 W13 L02 W09 W08 wbwb 1,1,2,3
06 W14 L01 W10 L04 bwbw 1,1,2,2
07 W15 L04 W11 L03 wbwb 1,1,2,2
08 W16 L03 W12 L05 bwbw 1,1,2,2
09 L01 W14 L05 W12 bwbw 0,1,1,2
10 L02 W13 L06 W14 wbwb 0,1,1,2
11 L03 W16 L07 W13 bwbw 0,1,1,2
12 L04 W15 L08 L09 wbwb 0,1,1,1
13 L05 L10 W15 L11 bwwb 0,0,1,1
14 L06 L09 W16 L10 wbbw 0,0,1,1
15 L07 L12 L13 W16 bwbw 0,0,0,1
16 L08 L11 L14 L15 wbwb 0,0,0,0The moral: In a smallish tournament or section, transpose to equalize colors, but not to alternate colors. (In a pairing program, change the alternation limit from 80 to 0, while leaving the equalization limit at 200).
Bill Smythe
Oh, I’m ok with colors not necessarily working out evenly sometimes. For instance, in my last 4 round Swiss, I had black in the first round, white in the second round, and black in the last two rounds. I didn’t complain to the TD, though I did grumble a little about my bad luck. These things happen. Besides, I happened to know that my final round opponent plays the Ruy Lopez, which is my favorite opening to play against as black, so it worked out well for me (and I ended up winning that game).
The reason I started this thread is because I’m playing in a “one game per week” Swiss where I had white in the first round, then black in the next two rounds. I just wanted to know if it’s a safe bet that I’ll have white in the final round next Saturday. Because I’m in the second highest score group, with only one person in the highest score group, I’ve got my list of possible opponents narrowed down. I’m likely to be facing someone higher rated than myself within my own score group, so I’d think that normally, they’d get priority if we’re both due the same color (white). What I’m trying to figure out is if the “three in a row” rule overrules that.
Of course, I’m probably overthinking this whole thing, and I should just relax and play. But these guys are all higher rated than me, and I know what openings most of them play, so I really want to prepare in advance and try to beat them. 
I guess I’m a little too competitive sometimes.
The priorities were changed in the last rulebook. with the higher-rated priority moving down the list. Right now, with opponents WBB and BWB, WBB would receive W (even if the lower rated) because the other player had white in a later round.
Avoiding 3 in a row of the same color is higher on a TD’s priority list than merely alternating colors, but not as high as pairing players with similar scores, or not pairing the same players twice.
So if your color sequence has been WBB, I’d say you are about 99% sure to get white in round 4.
Ask yourself these questions: Has anybody else in your score group (or in the 1-person score group above yours) had WBB (or worse yet, BBB or BBx or BxB or xBB, where x denotes an unplayed game such as a bye)? If not, I don’t see any earthly way you won’t get white. Is there any other halfway reasonable way to pair your score group (and the one above)? If so, then again I don’t see how you couldn’t get white.
Bill Smythe
I didn’t realize that. That’s really good to know. In that case, I can’t think of a scenario that would leave me playing black next round - we’ve got enough people that we shouldn’t need to desperately break every pairing rule just to find pairings where people don’t play twice.
Actually, that also kind of kills a theory of mine. I tend to play black more often than white in tournaments, much more than you’d think is statistically likely. For instance, I recently counted through the games in my current scorebook, and in my last 8 tournaments (all Swiss format), I played white 14 times and black 22 times. And I haven’t gone back and counted earlier scorebooks, but I think this is a lifetime trend of having black probably 60% of the time. I always assumed it was because I tend to play higher rated opponents, so I lose out on priority when there’s a conflict. But apparently, that’s not usually the case.
For instance, take the last tournament I mentioned above, where I had black three times and white once. I assumed it was because my final round opponent was higher rated than me, so he got priority. But looking at the way it worked out there, that’s not the case this time. It really had nothing to do with me, which from my perspective makes it just dumb luck that I ended up with black again that way.
I think I’m just jinxed. 
Anyway, thanks for all the good answers. Now for the more important question - Since I’m sure I’m playing white, what do you recommend against the Caro Kann? 
LOL Good answer, but that’s just not my style.
I’m never going to improve if I shy away from a challenge. The CK has been a gaping hole in my opening repertoire for a while, but I rarely face it, so I haven’t worried too much. Now that there’s a good chance I’ll face it next week, it’s a good excuse to finally pick a line to learn against it.
I ran a section in Philadelphia once in which after two rounds, there were 4 players with zero, and all had 2 whites. The blacks then won again so there were two with 0-3, both having 3 whites. Black won again in round 4 so there was one 0-4 who had 4 whites. In the last round of the 5 round tournament, there was an odd number in that section, so the player with 0-4 would have gotten a bye, except I recruited a spectator to play and gave the spectator white against the player with 0-4. The player silently went to play, missing the chance to say, “I protest, I’m supposed to get white EVERY round.”
Bill Goichberg
“Losing out on priority” wouldn’t explain it. In case both players are due the same color (and both players have the same color history in the tournament), the higher-ranked doesn’t automatically get white. He gets his due color, whether white or black. So, if you are usually the lower-ranked player, you will often get black when you are due white, but you should equally often get white when you are due black.
There is, however, a related phenomenon that might explain it. In the first round, the colors alternate board by board. So if the higher-rated gets white on board 1, the lower-rated will get white on board 2, the higher-rated on board 3, the lower-rated on board 4, etc. This is done so that, among the winners, there will be about an equal number of due-whites as due-blacks, and likewise among the losers. This reduces color conflicts in round 2.
But sometimes there are upsets. When there are, it usually involves a lower-rated with white defeating a higher-rated with black. So the plus-score groups are likely to have an excess of whites (due black), while the minus-score groups will have an excess of blacks (due white). If most of your opponents are higher-rated than you, perhaps you are in the minus-score groups a lot, where some players due white will have to be given black.
Bill Smythe
So out of curiosity, I went back and checked my old scorebooks. In my last 168 tournament games, I’ve had the white pieces 75 times and the black pieces 93 times. So I’m at about 55% black over the long run. That could just be random, but the trend seems consistent enough to stand out. I guess it’s also more obvious right now, because I’m at over 60% black in the last few months (14 white to 22 black in my current scorebook).
Are you playing in a lot of events with an odd number of rounds?
Probably about half and half between an even and odd number of rounds. I play more 4 round “one game per week” events at the local clubs than major weekend Swiss tournaments (which are usually 5 rounds), but I also miss the occasional week here or there as life gets in the way, so I don’t always get to play all 4 games. When I play at major Swiss events that are divided into sections, I do “play up a section” about half the time, so I usually end up with a bye in those, and I usually get paired against someone from another section for an extra game during the bye round.
–Fromper