Prize fund is as follows:
1st place $57.
Class A $42.
Class B $42.
Class C $42.
U1400 $42.
Classes A, B, and C tie for 1st place.
My distribution is 1st + A + B divided by 3.
Another suggestion is 1st + B + C divided by 3.
The rule book doesn’t seem to be clear that the highest classes are to be brought into the pool for distribution. 32B2 and 32B3 seem to be the relevant rules.
Can someone point me to the correct rule, please?
I do not believe there is a rule that addresses this question. I understand it is unfair to change the hypothetical, but this is a good example of why a prize fund such as top A $42, top B $41, top C $40, top under 1400 $39 would be desirable.
I agree with with the different prize amounts as curing this problem.
32B1. One cash prize per player. states that “…A clear winner of more than one cash prize must be awarded the most valuable prize”.
32B4 states “…A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved”.
These are the rules that I use for my interpretation. Unfortunately, they don’t exactly address class winners tying with place winners.
Would there be any justification for bringing up the C class (instead of A) into the pool?
I always have had different prize amounts. However, I know of cases like yours where a different method was used. I am not saying you should or should not use the method, but it is another option. What the case was that the prizes were 1st 100, A 60 B 60 and a Class A & class B player tied for first. What the organizer/TD did was to pay each play $80 but taking only half from each class. This left $30 for the next A class and $30 for the next B class player. So, you could take $14 from all of the class [A, B, C] prizes along with the first place money and split it 3 ways between the 3 players [one from each class] that tied for first place. This would leave $28 remaining for class prize awards to other players.
As a player I once argued for 5 minutes with the TD about prize distribution. Me [Class A at the time] and an Expert tied for second place. The TD gave us Second place, Top X, & Top A. Yes 2 players received 3 prizes! You would think that the TD might wonder why I was arguing for less money if I was wrong wouldn’t you? After the 5 minutes I realized my arguing was futile and took the extra money.
Larry S. Cohen
Three players tied and can receive up to three prizes. If they were under prizes it would be a three-way split of 1st/U2000/U1800. Ranking distinct prizes is a bit more difficult.
All three get 1/3 of 1st and each gets 2/3 of another prize. Since A, B and C are identical and each have only one player eligible, giving each 2/3 of their class would be quite plausible, leaving $14 each for the next A, B and C.
This might be the best solution, and is also why I greatly prefer under prizes.
Alex Relyea
Or even worse, consider if it’s 3 B’s that tie for first. As the prize fund is constructed, they get $33 each (three way split of 1st and B), while a lower scoring A player might make more than they do.
Or a lower scoring C player, or a lower scoring U1400 player.
OK, well I guess my question is, in the case I presented, taking B&C up with 1st is considered okay? I think this is what everyone is saying, but if you consider a prize fund where the class prizes are, for instance A 43, B 42, C 41 u1400 40, and 1st is, say 55, would it still be okay to bring up B&C?
No.
There were actually 2 questions there, Ken 
No. It would be strongly debated.
No. Open & A & B.
Thanks.
The original post is something that occurred last Saturday in a tournament where a Local TD was the Chief. I was one of the B players involved in the tie. I’m trying to convince the Local TD that he erred by not awarding the A prize in the pool.
No.
While it appears that no rule covers this specific situation, Mr. Wiewel’s suggestion to award each of the three players in the tie 1/3 of the 1st place prize plus 2/3 of his class prize seems like the best way to split this. The problem with any other distribution which brings in 100% of two of the place prizes, but leaves out the third one is that there is no good way to decide which two go in, and which one gets left over for other players to claim. Whether you split it 1st + A +B, 1st + A + C, or 1st + B +C you’re going to get an argument.
The next thing to do is to convince the organizer to change to a different prize structure for future tournaments.
Jeff Wiewell’s proposal is one favored by many NTDs, myself included. It is fair to all the players tying for 1st and makes the other players getting small payments happy. However, it is not codified in the rule book. As the tied players all get the amount they should regardless of which prize is brought up, I can’t see a justification to appeal the payout. Additionally, if you don’t say which 2 prizes are brought up none of the players know who should appeal.
Regards, Ernie
I know. The C player who got shut out.
Alex Relyea
Well, given the differing opinions, it appears to me then that Brennan’s conclusion, and mine, are just wrong, but instead there are different ways to look at it, all being okay. So, we could take 1st, A, B; 1st, B, C; 1/3 of 1st, 2/3 A, 2/3 B; etc. and all would be justified.
I am not sure where 2/3 of classes come from; why not 1/3 for each?
This looks like a possible ADM could be offered.
My reading of 32B3 tells me that 1st, A, and B are to be brought up, because “all the cash prizes involved should be summed and divided equally”, and 32B1 states that no player can receive more than one prize, which would preclude class C, since only 3 prizes can be used for 3 winners.
Would Bob M, others from rules committee care to weigh in on this?
I don’t understand how Mr. Winchester thinks any solution that does not have three prizes for the three players who tied for first could possibly be acceptable.
Alex Relyea