If a tournament has $500 plus in prizes advertised with four sections and prizes individually based on 30 in each section and says unrated in under sections only eligible for half of place prizes, how do you determine prizes here?
Advertised b/30 in U1100
1st $175
2nd $100
U800 $50
Under 1100 section with only 6 players
Here’s what I think. Agree or tell me how I’m wrong?
I think 50% of advertised must be paid, so 1st 3.5 gets 100% of the new 1st.
2nd 2.5 goes to unrated so he gets half of the new 2nd.
The other half of 2nd must be paid because 50% of advertised for the section must be paid. So the next in line get it. We have three 2 pts, but 1 of them does better to get the U800 Prize alone. That leaves the rest of the remaining other half of 2nd to be split between the other two 2 pts for 12.50 each.
Or doesn’t the remaining $25 after the unrated takes half of 2nd have to be paid? If you don’t pay it, then you haven’t paid 50% of advertised.
I disagree with the prize distribution; You’ve awarded 1st and 2nd place already. Players “1050, 950” do not qualify for the U800 prize - therefore Player750 gets $25 (2nd place balance) + $25 (U800 prize) for a total of $50 dollars in prizes.
I would not shift the remaining $25 from the 2nd place price to the U800 player. If you are going to reduce the prizes by 50%, a horrible practice but acceptable under USCF rules, then the U800 player should have his prize reduced by that amount and not be made whole by giving him another prize share. The $25 should go to the next player(s) available to receive a place prize since it was place prize money.
Wow, interesting. Two NTDs disagreeing about what should happen to the remaining $25 from 2nd prize after unrated takes his half. But everyone so far agrees that money does need to be paid somewhere or the 50% on total advertised is not met. Right? How do we determine what is correct?
Your prize distribution was correct. Probably the best way to think of this is that there is (in the original distribution) a 3rd place prize of $0. When the unrated can only take $25 out of the 2nd place money, the remaining $25 drops down to 3rd place. You have a three way split among the 2.0’s, but the one player does better taking the U800 money alone, so the remaining two get a two way split of the $25.
32C6. Limited Prizes: In general, when a player is allowed to enter a given event or section, that player is eligible for the prizes in that section. However, when a player (e.g. an unrated in a lower section) receives a limited prize, the distribution of the remaining prize is to follow the following priority list.
The total dollar amount of all cash prizes announced or computed by “based on” shall be paid:
Within the event.
Within the section in which the limit was awarded.
Within the prize group (e.g. place, class or under) in which the limit was awarded.
Within the point group in which the limit was awarded.
Missing in Tim’s answer was the application of that rule to this situation. To this non-TD it isn’t obvious from the rule alone.
I think the application is that it ought to be given within the place prizes rather than the under prizes, but you would still need to use Tom D’s concept of a third prize of $0 to make this applicable. This makes sense to me. If there was a third prize of $1 the application would be obvious.
The justification for adding a second prize to one individual totally escapes me. The fact that this player alone is eligible for a class prize in no way gives him exclusive rights to available place prizes.
The problem with USCF rule 32C6 is that it stops after #4 “Within the point group in which the limit was awarded.” It doesn’t say what to do in a case, as here, where there isn’t anyone else in that point group. Ms. Herman’s proposed distribution is the most logical way to handle this specific case, but it would have simplfied the problem if some wording such as “balance of any limited prize goes to next player(s) in line” had been in the tournament announcement.
My previous rationale was that the remaining balance goes to the next prize rather than the players. Also, there was also no 3rd place prize so with 1st and 2nd prize awarded, the only other prize is U800 so he got the rest of the $25 dollars etc. etc.
Tom’s explanation of an “3rd place - 0 dollar” prize was very helpful and thus quoted. I won’t modify my previous post for others to learn as well.
Thank you all for your responses. Mr. Reed, thanks for pointing out that you are a Special Referee. I don’t think you were on the list shown to me by the TD I was trying to convince. Or maybe you were, but I was posting here by memory of the list of TDs he might call. Good to know you are one in any event. The TD I was trying to convince got a hold of Tim Just. Tim’s explanation was along the lines of yours if I’m following this thread right. The remainder of 2nd is treated like a 3rd place, which is the same thing as giving it to the next in line in score. I actually had the example a little off. There was only one 2 pointer beside the one who got the Under prize. So that one got the full remainder of 2nd, $25. Guess what. It was I. I worked harder for this prize in the skittles room than I did over the board. Once the TD was convinced, it was a whole nuther job convincing the organizer who was actually making the decisions and giving out the money. Rather than believing what the TD had been told by the author of the rulebook and high level TDs on this forum, he preferred to phone-a-friend to confer, a friend who has twice failed the Senior TD exam I’m told. Their logic was not to “create another prize” but instead put a half the remainder into 1st and the the other half into the Under prize in essence increasing those advertised prize amounts rather than looking at it as those players receiving more than 100% of one prize. Would that have been legal, “legal but stupid,” or just in violation of 32c6 somehow?
We did have the rulebook open discussing this. We just didn’t understand all the words in it or read that rule the same way.
The problem of convincing the organizer was compounded by his denying being the one who put the part about unrateds eligible for half of place prizes in the flier at all. (I’m not even sure if there was a TLA or what was in it.) So “next in line” may not have been his intention. In any event, I think he did the right thing in the end.
If would have disturbed me immensely if he had assigned additional money to the Under prize winner considering the poor sportsmanship he displayed over the board and after the game over a “touch move/touch take” claim I made. I was pretty severely verbally abused by this fellow even when I tried to speak to him privately and smooth over his bad experience with learning the rules the hard way. This is why I love Mr. Reed’s sig tag: Priceless. I think making comments like “that was a jacka$$ move” over the board with an young child as the board next to you warrants a penalty if not expulsion. Calling your opponent a “bltch” (outright) after the game is pretty unsportsmanlike too. Since when does your opponent have to make you take the piece you touched. I would do it on my own honor whether anyone saw me touch it or not. That’s following the rules. Those who don’t want to play by rated chess rules should stay in the coffee shop environment or online not degrade their opponents for expecting the rules to be followed.
I became one relatively recently. I don’t think my name is published as one anywhere except TD/A.
I believe you are.
“Bank error in your favor. Collect $200.” Congratulations.
I would consider that illegal. IMO, Rule 32C6 isn’t controlling here. Rule 32B1, cited upthread, reads as follows. (Italicizing mine.)
Adding parts of an unawarded prize into another full prize appears to specifically run afoul of the italicized sentences.
For smaller events, I would probably avoid restricting unrated players in terms of winning overall prizes. That’s something you do when you are worried about protecting players in class sections or Under-XXXX classifications. This is more of an issue for larger events, where the increased prize funds make them more susceptible to chicanery. For a smaller local event, restricting unrated players to winning only overall prizes is likely sufficient protection.
I am afraid I can find no statement or implication about the relative size of the event or section.
The section in question had six players. The overall event had about 60 players in 4 sections.
That said, my comment about when/how to restrict unrateds was a general comment, not a critique of this event. It certainly was no critique of Ms. Herman, who was, AFAICT, neither a TD nor an organizer for this event.
By “larger” I simply meant there were other higher rated sections. OP says there were four sections and that the prize in this section was based on 30. In point of fact they had a U1800, U1400 and Open.
Can I retract my previous answer?