I don’t think that’s the correct way to look at this—there are all kinds of odd problems that could arise if you try to match the amount the restricted player can “bring in” with the prizes. (Many times it will work OK, but not always). Do the calculations the normal way and see
Here is how I’d award the prizes in a MACA tournament. First calculate the prize each player without a prize limit would win if the player with the prize limit weren’t in the tournament: $175 each for the two players tied for first, $100 for the next player in line. This becomes their prize limit. Then calculate prizes as if no one had a prize limit: $150 each for 1st to 3rd. Then apply the prize limits: $50 for the player with the prize limit, with $100 left over. Then distribute the leftover money: $25 for each of the other two players tied for 1st to bring their prizes to $175, with $50 dropping down to the next score group.
Look at rule 32B3. Aaron pulls in one prize, the $600 1st U1400 prize, and Kyosu (with no prize limit in this hypothetical situation) pulls in one prize, the $1000 1st prize. The prizes are added and divided by two because Aaron gets more money that way than he would if he kept the 1st U1400 prize for himself.
Bill Goichberg said he’d give $800 each to Kyosu and Aaron. To me, that’s inconsistent with how he’d award the prizes in the case where the prize limit was $600. Maybe some day Bill will write up a detailed description of how prizes should be awarded at CCA tournaments.
Here, I disagree. IMO, the first sentence of Rule 32B1 simply doesn’t allow this distribution. You can’t give Aaron all of U1400 AND a share of 1st overall. That flatly violates the very first sentence of the rule.
As I read Rule 32B3, I see nothing in the verbiage that provides an exception to any provision of Rule 32B1.
So, IMO, the real choice here is whether Aaron factors into the 1st/2nd pool, or whether Aaron gets U1400. As Aaron clearly makes out better with the former, that’s where I put him.
I agree with your opinion here. (For the record, I think my proposed distributions at both limits apply the rules consistently.) And I would certainly like to see such a description written. For now, I must concur with Messrs. Smythe and Just regarding their opinion of such scenarios.
I understand that an ADM was presented (or, was considered for presentation) in an attempt to clarify this part of the prize distribution rules back in 2011. (That was the year I ended up running the Cleveland Open instead of going to the Delegates Meeting.) Can someone who was present relate what happened to this ADM/effort?
If Kyosu were simply rated 1500 and not subject to any limitation, how would these two prizes have been awarded in the original example?
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. I wonder how other TDs interpret 32B1.
Come to think of it, it wasn’t really an ADM since it wasn’t in the Delegates Call. It was a proposed delegate motion which Steve Immitt and I presented at the Rules Workshop. After the workshop voted it down we decided not to make the motion at the Delegates Meeting. It’s not as detailed as I remembered it. Here it is:
Proposed Amendment to Rule 32C6, Limited Prizes.
Move to amend rule 32C6 by changing “limit” to “limited prize” throughout and adding the following after bullet 4:
No player shall be awarded more money than he or she would have won if the players subject to the prize limit(s) were excluded from the prize distribution.
Any variation from the above distribution rules must be advertised in all pre-tournament publicity.
RATIONALE: The current version of rule 32C6, adopted by the delegates in 2010, reads as follows:
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:
This rule is ambiguous because it allows any of several distribution methods to be used when all the players in a point group are subject to the prize restriction. Another defect in the current rule is that it allows a player to win more money than he or she could have won if the player(s) subject to the prize limit weren’t in the tournament.
Example #1:
Advertised prizes are: 1st - $1000 2nd - $500, no unrated player can win more than $300.
Players finish in the following order: Player A (unrated) ties with Player B (rated) with 4.5 points out of 5, Players C and D each score 4 points. Under the current rule Player A wins $300 and Player B wins $1200. Under the proposed new rule Player A wins $300, Player B wins $1000 and Players C and D each win $100.
Example #2:
Advertised prizes are: 1st - $1440 2nd - $720 3rd - $400 4th - $240, no unrated player can win more than $600. Players finish in the following order: Player A (unrated) 5.5, Player B (rated) 5, Players C, D, and E 4.5. Under the current rule Player B’s prize could be anything from $720 to $1560. Under the proposed new rule, Player A wins $600, Player B wins $1440, and Players C, D and E win $253.34 each.
In this case, I’d give Aaron and Kyosu $767 (well, $766.50) each.
Rationale: The only player eligible for place and class prizes is Aaron. Now, U1400 is $600, which of course is more than 2nd overall ($533). So, one way to look at this is to pool 1st overall and U1400, for a total of $1600. Divided by two, Aaron and Kyosu then get $800.
However, who got what prize? This is the component that I think is being overlooked to some degree.
If Kyosu and Aaron each got $800, then either (A) Aaron got all of U1400 and part of 1st, or (B) Kyosu shared part of U1400. (A) does not work because of Rule 32B1, as cited upthread. (B) does not work because Kyosu is not eligible for any part of the U1400 money. Ergo, you can’t pull the U1400 money into this distribution.
So now, the question goes back to Aaron. How does Aaron make out best? Aaron clearly gets more money for splitting 1st/2nd than for taking clear U1400.
We may need an ADM to clarify 32B1. I believe the intent of 32B3 is that Aaron and Kyosu should each receive $800.
“Max of one prize per player” is a concept that is not only fair, but very easy to explain to players (and newer TDs). It makes many things - especially complicated ties - easier to understand. Offhand, I would oppose any attempt to change at least that part of Rule 32B1. (I reserve the right to change my mind. 
)
Why isn’t Rule 32B3 the governing rule here? As amended by the Delegates last year, effective January 1, 2015:
Rule 32B3. Ties for more than one prize.
If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. No player may receive an amount greater from the division of those prizes than the largest prize for which he would be eligible if there were no tie. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes.
In October 2014, the rule was similar:
Rule 32B3. Ties for more than one prize.
If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes.
This a more complicated situation, because:
There are two principles involved:
a.) The application of Rule 32B3 (the most recent amendment not germane in this case).
b.) The “correct” algorithm for distribution of prizes involving a limited prize
The amount of the unrated prize limit was coincidentally the same as the amount of the second-largest prize (in this case, the 1st Under 1400 prize was the second-largest prize).
I was concerned about justifying the prize distribution amounts, and this was the explanation Bill Goichberg gave me:
The rated player brought first into the tie and the unrated brought 2nd. The unrated could not bring more than $600 into the tie, and is not eligible for U1400, so the only prize he can bring into the tie is 2nd. The rated player is the only one who can bring $1000 into the tie, and he can not also bring in U1400.
He did recommend, because the cutoff issue presents a problem, it might be a good idea to stipulate that unrateds are not pooled with rateds if:
1)The unrateds are not eligible for prizes in that class and
2) Without pooling, the unrateds in the tie will not win more than the rateds.
Boyd, look at Example 3 under 32B5.
According to your interpretation of 32B1, player 6 can’t win all of the $75 B prize and also win part of the 3rd or 4th prize. So how would you award the prizes?
I agree that this particular distribution example illustrates a problem with my reading of Rule 32B1, as applying my reading would shortchange player 6. I do think the rulebook distribution is fair in that example, but I think that’s because the prize fund is structured in such a way that the class prizes are clearly ranked below the overall prizes. (Rule 33B covers this.)
I still think that players should not take part of any prize for which they are not eligible by rule. Not adhering to Rule 33B - which, BTW, is clearly listed as a recommendation, not a rule - creates that problem.
One could read it that way. I just believe Rule 32B1, coming before Rule 32B3, takes precedence. The real problem, IMO, is that we’re both right.
But we do this all the time! Look at example 3 following rule 32B5 (page 191 of the printed rule book). In that example, the only way to pay player 6 $100 is to pay him the full $75 1st class B prize (as he is the only player involved in the tie eligible for that prize) plus $25 from one of the place prizes (either third or fourth).
In my opinion, the wording the rules governing prize distribution is highly suboptimal (using terminology that is acceptable under the AUG). I agree that the wording of 32B1 would seem to preclude the common practice as applied in the example I cited. However, rules 32B1 and 32B3 are contradictory (what an unbelievable surprise, eh?). It is perhaps more accurate to say that no more than one prize per player goes into the pool to be divided, but the resulting payout of equal amounts may cause one or more players to be paid more than one cash prize.
I’m guessing most directors don’t actually follow the individual prizes involved in a tie to track how each player is paid (such as player 6 in the cited example).
(By the way, I spent a fairly long time writing this reply, having been interrupted by several other matters. Apologies if I have duplicated any of the intervening discussion.)
You have to be careful about the wording there. The money could actually flow to a point group lower than that if the next point group down had someone with a limit, or someone who would take 100% of a larger class prize.
How about changing “parts of two or more cash prizes if tied with others” in 32B1 to “a share of a total of two or more cash prizes if tied with others”? I think that makes clearer that it’s a share of a total and not weights on individual prizes.
Our intention was that in that case you’d apply rule 5 again and continue moving the money down until you’d awarded all of the money, or ran out of score groups, in which case you’d follow the earlier part of the rule and try to award the money within the section or at least within the tournament. But yes, based on the preceding discussion, to make the distribution algorithm unambiguous it would need to be spelled out in excruciating detail.
You can’t tease that out. It’s a collective claim, not individual. If either player could do better taking the “other” prize as an individual, they would do it. Together, they are entitled to a combination of $1600. Once you determine that there is no way that either player can do better by going out on his own, the $1600 is just one blob of money—where it came from no longer matters—each gets an equal share. The $800 per player is the “one cash award” to which the 32B1 refers, arrived at as “parts of two or more cash awards if tied with others.” This is as opposed to giving the under player 1/2 of first as one cash award and the under money as a separate one which might be a naive way that a TD might do it.
I’m not disregarding the remainder of your comment. Rather, I believe my previous posts already answered all of the points you made in it.
At this point, I think we simply disagree on the proper distribution. As this thread has demonstrated, we’re hardly alone in that. While I disagree with your rationale, and would probably oppose an ADM that supported it, I would be happy to see this clarified, one way or the other.
Essentially the $1000 first and $600 class is divided with each of the co-winners getting 1/2 of first and 1/2 of the class. In this case the only player eligible for the class prize does better by ceding 1/2 of the class prize to the pool in exchange for 1/2 of the first prize. The class player is NOT getting all of the class prize plus a portion of the first place prize any more than if a co-champion that was second on tie-breaks would be getting all of the second place prize plus a portion of the first place prize. This is a type of distribution that has been going on for years and is supported by the examples in the rulebook to explain the rule as it is stated.