Divide the prizes in the following three situations. Justify the diffences in how you award the prizes. For all three the players at the top of the event are
5 points Arnie 1980
4.5 points Alfred 1950
4.5 points Bernie 1750
4 points Alonzo 1930
4 points Bob 1730
situation 1
1st prize $200
2nd prize $150
top A $75.02
top B $75
situation 2
1st prize $200
2nd prize $150
top under 2000 $75
top under 1800 $75
situation 3
1st prize $200
2nd prize $150
top A $75
top B $75
Alonzo loses out in all situations.
Situation 1:
Arnie $200 1st Prize.
Alfred + Bernie $112.51 each, splitting the pool of 2nd Prize and Top A. The higher score group is entitled to split the most valuable of the potentially pooled prizes. Cf. Rule 32B1.
Alonzo -0- There is no prize remaining for which he is eligible.
Bob $75 Top B.
Situation 2:
Arnie $200 1st Prize.
Alfred + Bernie $112.50 each, splitting the pool of 2nd Prize and Top Under 2000. The 4.5 score group is entitled to split the second place prize and one of the Under prizes. “A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved.” Rule 32B4.
Alonzo -0- There is no prize remaining for which he is eligible.
Bob $75 Top Under 1800.
Situation 3:
Arnie $200 1st Prize.
Alfred + Bernie $112.50 each, splitting the pool of 2nd Prize and Top A. The 4.5 score group is entitled to split the second place prize and one of the class prizes. “A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved.” Rule 32B4.
Alonzo -0- There is no prize remaining for which he is eligible.
Bob $75 Top B.
The rules aren’t entirely clear about these situations, but here is how I would award the prizes:
Situation 1:
Arnie $200
Alfred $112.51
Bernie $112.51
Alonzo $0
Bob $75
Situation 2:
Arnie $200
Alfred $112.50
Bernie $112.50
Alonzo $0
Bob $75
Situation 3:
Arnie $200
Alfred $112.50
Bernie $112.50
Alonzo $0
Bob $75
As I see it, the three situations are essentially the same. Clearly Arnie gets the undivided first prize of $200. Alfred and Bernie tie for second, so under 32B3 they split the second prize of $150 plus one of the class prizes, but which one?
In Situation 1 Alfred is eligible for the Class A prize and Bernie is eligible for the Class B prize, so either one of them could bring that prize into the prize pool. Rule 32B1 says “A clear winner of more than one cash prize must be awarded the most valuable prize.” Extending that principle, Alfred and Bernie are collectively better off winning $150 + $75.02 (2nd + A) than winning $150 + $75 (2nd + B), so Alfred brings the A prize into the prize pool and Bernie brings the 2nd prize into the prize pool. This leaves only the class B prize of $75, which Bob is eligible for and Alonzo is not, leaving Alonzo with nothing.
Following that same logic, in this perverse prize structure:
Situation 4:
1st prize $200
2nd prize $150
top A $75
top B $75.02
I would award $112.51 each to Alfred and Bernie, $75 to Alonzo and nothing to Bob (assuming someone else designed the prize structure, since I would never design it that way.)
In Situation 2, Alfred and Bernie are both eligible for the U2000 prize and only Bernie is eligible for the U1800. The prizes are the same amount. Rule 32B4 says “A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved.” Therefore Alfred and Bernie split the 2nd and U2000 prizes, leaving the U1800 prize which Bob is eligible to win and Alonzo is not.
Situation 3 is similar to Situation 1 except that now the Class A and B prizes are the same amount. I would still give Alfred and Bernie the 2nd and Class A prizes, but now I’d do it because of rule 32B4 (“A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved”) instead of 32B1 (“A clear winner of more than one cash prize must be awarded the most valuable prize.”) This leaves the Class B prize, which Bob can win and Alonzo cannot.
To keep it brief, I came up with the same distributions as brennanprice in all three scenarios.
Iagree with everyone on the prize distribution for situation 1. For those who remember or still have it the 2nd edition of the USCF rule book had sample guidelines for prize distribution. Under those guidelines you give out the prizes as has been previously stated.
For situation 2 & 3 I would make an announcement prior to the start of the first round as to how the prizes would be distributed in the event of a tie for a place prize between players in different rating (prize) categories. What I would do is take 1/2 of each of the “class” prizes as part of the prizes awarded to the place tying players. So the amount of the prizes would be unchanged for Arnie, Alfred, & Bernie. Alonzo & Bob would both be awarded $37.50 for their finishes. I have seen this used in a few tournaments I have been in as a player & I liked it even though it did not have any effect on any money I won.
Larry S. Cohen
Also see the thread"32B3 – the Stupidest Rule in the Rulebook"
This example shows why I have advised organizers to NEVER make any two prizes exactly the same, even in different classes.
But couldn’t there still be a problem if, for example, one prize were exactly 2/3 of another, and there was a three-way tie for the larger prize and a two-way tie for the smaller?
Bill Smythe
…and how often would that happen? By not making any two prizes exactly the same most all of the prize distribution problems disappear. No system is perfect, the one I recommend just comes way closer than making two prizes exactly the same.
What numbers are you thinking of?
If one prize is being brought into the mix then the larger would be brought in.
Example:
400; 300; 200; 100; topA 75; topB 50 with 3 A and 2 B players tying for first. They bring in 400 + 300 + 200 + 100 + (for the final prize) 75. If you tried bringing in 2/3 of A and 1/2 of B then that adds up to 7/6 prizes brought in (exceeding the one additional prize to be brought it). If A and B were both 75 then bringing in 1/2 of A and 1/2 of B adds up to 2/2 (i.e. 1) prize brought in.
32B4 refers to a (i.e. single) player eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount. That is different from two players each being individually eligible for two different class prizes of an identical amount. Thus 32B4 is not applicable to this situation. Alfred is eligible for top A and Bernie is eligible for top B. Neither is eligible for both.
Situation 2 is different from situation 3. Bernie is eligible for both U2000 and U1800, so the U2000 would be brought in.
That’s why I said the rules aren’t entirely clear in these situations. Taken literally, there doesn’t appear to be any rule that tells us how to award the prizes in Situation 3. I do think the principle of 32B4 can be used to justify awarding Alfred and Bernie 2nd + A rather than 2nd + B. It’s not exactly same as what the rule is talking about because the rule refers to a single player who is eligible for multiple class prizes but here it’s being applied to a group of players who are collectively eligible for either the Class A or the Class B prize but not both. I think it’s an analogous situation.
Similarly, 32B1 says that the clear winner of multiple prizes gets the largest prize that he’s eligible for, but we’re applying it to a situation where players in a tie are collectively eligible for multiple prizes. It’s not quite the same situation as in the rule but it’s analogous.
My thinking is the same as Messenger’s. The question seems to be rather this situation is not directly covered in the rules and so allows what Jeff refers to as a “fair” solution. It appears the rules are clear that a higher class prize is considered more valuable. Imagine this became a legal issue with a judge forced to rule on the correct distribution of the prizes. All the lawyers I have asked said the rules seem sufficiently clear. If this was not the intent of the rule then we should rewrite the rule.
And here’s the real question that nobody has asked:
5 points Arnie 1980
4.5 points Alfred 1780 <— changed
4.5 points Bernie 1750
4 points Alonzo 1930
4 points Bob 1730
situation 3
1st prize $200
2nd prize $150
top A $75
top B $75
Here, Alonzo’s in luck and Bob is out of it. Alfred and Bernie pool $150 for 2nd and $75 for Top B, because neither of them are eligible for Top A.
Now try explaining the logic behind that to Bob. 
When I came across this scenario, the class prizes were advertised as 2300-2399 and U2300 in a Master section. The only two 2300s both did poorly, and indeed finished with less points than several 2200s. Suffice it to say, the organizer didn’t have much of an explanation, except for promising to correct his mistake next year. Which he did, by advertising U2400 and U2300.
I thought by now that class prizes with lower rating bounds would be extinct. I guess not. 
Michael Aigner
In response to the case where there were only players in the 2300-2399 rating class. The fact there there was such a prize may have been what got these players to play. On the other hand if no 2300-2399 players had shown up, then the organizer could have keep that prize money.
I think another alternative would be to have specific $amount class prizes. Rather you could say there would be $400 awarded in class prizes based on class distribution of entries, with a prize for 2300-2399, U2300, U2100, etc. & as such if there are no players in a class the money would go to other classes and not the organizer. Also, with 2 players in a class there could be a prize for them, but less than what might be listed in a TLA. Just something to think about as a possible way to list prizes. Please note it does not address the issue of distribution in the case of ties.
Larry S. Cohen
I’m very confused.
Alex Relyea
Here are two different ways a tournament could be listed.
way 1: EF: $20. Prizes [$750, b/50]: 200-150, X 100, A 90, B 80, C 70, D/E/U 60.
way 2: EF: $20. Prizes [$750, b/50]: 200-150, 400 to classes [X, A, B, C, D/E/U] based on distribution of entries among classes.
The idea is that with way 2 you are not locked into set prizes, and can distribute it more in line with the actual turn out among the classes. Suppose you have the following distribution of players for the tournament in question. 1 Master, 4 Experts, 0 A players, 15 B players, 20 C players, 10 D/E/U players. So in a normal tournament [ way 1] you have the required 50 players for the $750 in prizes, but with no A players that prize does not have to be awarded. With the unusual prize listing I suggest you can redistribute the prizes more in line with the entries received. Say there was only 1 A player, 1 B player, and 23 D/E/U players. You have more flexibility with “way 2” than “way 1”, Although it might make the lone A & lone B player unhappy that they are not getting a much larger guaranteed prize [as the only player in a class].
I thought of this idea of prize distribution, because I have heard of players complaining about the organizers pocketing prize money from a class with no entrants. Also, I thought why not allow the prize fund to be distributed proportionally (or at least somewhat proportionally) to class prizes based on the entries in each class. Please note that I would only use this for a fully open tournament. Obviously this would never apply to a class tournament, & I do not think it should be used in a sectional tournament.
I will admit that as yet I have not used my suggestion [way 2], but it has been a while since I last organized an open tournament with class prizes.
Larry S. Cohen