Does a TD have discretion to award a late-arriving player a half-point bye in round 1 of a swiss in either/both of these scenarios?
Player has preregistered, been paired, but does not show. Opponent waits to the end of the time control (G/30) and claims forfeit win. Late player arrives near the end of round 1, says he got lost in traffic.
Player has not preregistered, walks in a few minutes after round 1 has started.
In either case, there is no mention of byes in the TLA. Unofficial flyer says “Up to two half-point byes available if requested in advance”.
It is common in case 2.
In case 1 a player was stuck waiting for a half hour. A half-point bye would readily be allowed for a re-entry, and some TDs might allow such a re-entry without charging a fee (I usually have less patience if somebody was stuck waiting - just like some organizers give full refunds if players didn’t actually play while others do so only if the players contact the organizer in time to avoid getting paired).
I would not allow a reentry for the player who arrived late unless the advance publicity advertised the availability of reentries. I would also not grant the player a half point bye.
In the second case (a player enters after the first round has started), I would absolutely allow the player a half point bye, especially since the “unofficial” flyer stated up to two half point byes were available. Note that rule 22C1 specifically allows half point byes to be available for the first half of a tournament (including the middle round if there is an odd number of rounds) without mentioning the availability in all pre-tournament publicity.
Often, esp at major tournaments, the “no-show” should not have been paired due to an
overlooked bye request for round one. In this case, often the corrective measure is to
award a full point bye to the player who would have been given the forfeit win, and
a half-point to the no-show.
In regard to your example, it is considered polite to call into the tournament hall and ask
for a bye, if it appears like there is any possibility one may not make round 1. To reward
someone who lacks the courtesy to do this, is in error. For, many times, a “house” player,
or unpaired player can be found for the pairing.
In the second case, no one’s time was wasted by the late arrival. As such, a general practice
of giving them a round one half-point bye is standard.
I’d be less inclined to award a bye in either case.
In case number 1… Just about any event that I have run has a cell phone available that day as a phone number in pre-event publicity. (It’s usually mine.) Somebody calls me before I’ve paired (or even as the round starts because they’re lost) I’ll be happy to award the bye. But if the late player hasn’t had the good sense to inform me, and has thus ‘stood up’ his or her opponent? Why should that be rewarded?
Not to mention, almost always, in club events I require physical presence before I count a player as in anyway. The notion of negative check-ins is still something I scratch my head at, even at larger scholastic tournaments. Positive check-in avoids the problem altogether. (Although as above, somebody calls me morning-of before tournament start, and I’m still happy to do so. And I have had players or parents call me many times to advise they’re on their way and please put or keep the player in or give a bye - fine!)
In case number 2… Again, why should I reward someone for late arrival and no pre-communication? I’d also add in that, as someone who loses Round 1 almost invariably, I am not happy with the notion that somebody gets a score ahead of me without playing by not being on time. However, rule 28K addresses Late Entrants. “The director may accept and pair entrants after the announced closing time for registration, but late entrants shall forfeit any round missed if it is inconvenient or too late to pair the players for play, or may take a half-point bye (22C) if the tournament offers them for that round.” That’s slightly at odds with 22C2, “All requests for byes should be made at least an hour before the bye round unless the director requires otherwise.” (And 22C2 is a rule upholding why I’m disinclined to reward such behavior.)
So, is there discretion? I’m willing to be reversed but I’d suggest there is. There should be, as there’s differences between a small club event and when significant prizes are on the line.
The crux of the issue to me though, is the ‘unofficial’ flyer stating byes are to be requested in advance. If unofficial is anything other than the organizer or director didn’t authorize the flyer, I’d say it’s understood that no advance notice = no bye.
I can understand (and respect) your point of view, but I think standard practice is (much) more lenient than rule 22C specifies.
As a thought experiment, what is the difference between a player who submits an entry in advance and requests a half point bye for the first round and a player who enters on site (presumably paying a somewhat higher on-site entry fee) after the first round and takes a half point bye for the first round? Yes, it is true that the advance entrant was “on time” insofar as he entered in advance. On the other hand, relative to players who play and lose the first round, both players (the advance entrant and the on-site entrant) are ahead of the loser in score without playing the first round.
As a practical matter, many tournaments run “on the financial edge” and struggle to break even. For such events, a tournament director or organizer (often, the same person!) might be very reluctant to turn away a player who wants to play and is willing to pay the on-site entry fee. Personally, I think that allowing the advance entrant a half point bye in the first round but denying the late arriving on site entrant a half point bye for the missed round is unnecessarily punitive.
I also think the one hour advance notice for half point byes mentioned in rule 22C is somewhat anachronistic in the age of computer generated pairings. I can certainly understand such a cutoff in an event such as the U.S. Open, simply because that is a very large tournament and it would be disruptive to accommodate requests for byes minutes before the round begins. But, for the smaller weekend swiss, with maybe a couple of dozen players, I think many TDs are willing to be flexible and accommodate bye requests (and withdrawals) much closer to the start of the round. The primary consideration should be starting the rounds on time, in my opinion. With computer generated pairings, it is easier to accommodate late requests while still starting the round on time. (On the other hand, don’t get me started on players who withdraw after the pairings have been posted because, well, the round doesn’t really start for another five minutes, so there’s still time to withdraw. Yes, it has happened.)
As an example of flexibility, the Metrowest Chess Club runs monthly tournaments with one round per week played Tuesday nights at 7:30. Players may call the club phone line and leave a message asking for a bye up to 7:00 Tuesday night. Players may also ask for a bye in person up to 7:20, although it is not clear to me why someone would be present to ask for a bye in person and not play the round. (I suppose a player could “send a proxy,” asking another player to let the TDs know he is asking for a bye. I don’t think I’ve seen that happen, but I’m fairly sure we would allow that.) We also accept in person entries until 7:20 and allow up to two half point byes, which are applied retroactively to missed rounds. Sometimes the TD staff scrambles to have the pairings for four sections (an average of 70-80 players each Tuesday night) ready to start the round on time, but we’re usually pretty close.
In the end, I think it’s more a matter of pragmatism than anything else, trying to accommodate as many paying players as possible in as fair a manner as possible, and keeping the “customers” as happy as possible.
I can understand this policy at a one-night-a-week club event when it is well established beforehand, and the players are likely to be substantially the same from week to week, but I don’t think this works for a weekend swiss. I think if a player has paid his entry fee, he’s entitled to come at the round start time, or even a bit late. Do you have players check in for subsequent rounds in a weekend swiss before you pair them as well? If not, what’s the difference. I’m assuming that you do as I do, if a player doesn’t show up for ANY round, you withdraw him and keep the entry fee, and put him back in if he has a reasonable reason for being so late.
I go to extreme steps to make sure that no player who wants to play has to sit out a round in one of my tournaments, but I’m not going to go so far as to demand that players get there fifteen minutes (an hour?) early in order to be paired.
Some of the weekend scholastic tournaments that I’ve worked have tried check-ins. In most cases when he used to do it, more of the players pulled actually arrived shortly after the start of the round than didn’t. Thus we ended up with more problems by doing the pulling than if we had simply re-paired players that didn’t have opponents. An option that seems more successful is giving refunds for players that don’t actually play if, and only if, they let the TDs know in time to avoid getting paired (and that is NOT 2 minutes before the round starts).
Weekend open tournaments VERY often have players that show up 15-45 minutes after the start of the first round of the day, find their pairing, and then start playing.
My club does a fall Swiss (one game per week) where we pair only those who show up by five minutes before the round. The Feb-Mar club championship (one game per week) is paired normally (allowing people to arrive late with their clock running).
Thre was once a player who used to play in the Manhattan Chess Club championship, and he would show up about 45 minutes late for each game (it was a slow, classical time control, one game a day, he was a strong player, and he would usually win anyway even with a 45-minute time handicap). The club tournament committee became so annoyed at his “disrespectful” behavior (presumably to the opponent and the tournament), that they imposed a special forfeit time for him: he had to appear at the start of the round, or he would lose on forfeit (maybe that’s where FIDE got the idea). His response was to show up at the official time for the round, and then, before making any moves, go and wait in the restroom for about 45 minutes with his clock running.
First of all, that’s why I share my opinion - so that others can share and I learn where to be more flexible. (Or, oppositely, I learn that if I hold my position what the consequences may be.) Better to put it out here now, where my mind might change, than in a live tournament.
The difference, to me as a player, would first be basic respect that tournaments have a starting time. I don’t see where requiring punctuality should be that big a burden.
Relative to players in the first round: That latecoming player gets the chance to change to second round pairings by becoming a float down instead of being paired naturally in their rating order.
But most especially, if that single half point given to make the player feel better makes the difference between my placing or losing a prize… then I’m not just annoyed, I’m mad. If somebody took that bye but they were there on time, fine - them’s the rules. But being gifted with it as a reward for being late? That upsets me as a player, and it would upset me as a director to award a prize on that basis.
While one wouldn’t travel a long distance only to drop, in club events I’m frequently asking players if they are in or not. I run things to the limit, and anyone could testify that I’m likely to start late in order to make sure nobody will be out. But it can make a difference to lower rated players who is in and who isn’t when play starts. I’ll still put someone in late, but I won’t give them the half point.
But, coming back to the beginning, this really is a shared cultural expectation and 28K makes me rethink my whole position. The thing I wonder about is the rule phrasing - does “may” imply that the director has total discretion as long as it is administered consistently, or does that mean that if the player isn’t paired the bye should be automatically granted?
While not an awarding a bye question, I did get burned (as a director) in our club championship last year by taking a player’s word that they would be there for every round. I paired the player, player did not show up. (The player did make contact with someone who wasn’t there, despite my contact information being all over the web publicity.) While doing some post analysis I figured out that even though it was highly unlikely to have affected the actual open champions - I believe the player receiving the forfeit win would have won against the player that would have been paired based on attendance - it may have affected one player who could have tied for the under group’s first place. That put paid to the notion of putting in non-present players for me at club events.
I don’t think I’ve ever been the organizer of a tournament which had pre-paid entries (though I’ve directed them.) In a weekend swiss I’d pair the player, and if they show up late, they pay the penalty of having his or her clock run. If time runs out it is a forfeit - the player certainly doesn’t get a half point. And the player who was there gets the full point. And yes, the out player gets a drop.
I wouldn’t demand an hour, either. It does, though, highlight the anachronism that in one spot byes are required to be in advance, but for late players they don’t.
I’ve made the major mistake at a scholastic of requiring positive check in when everybody else was expecting negative check in. (Won’t make that one again! If I roll another as positive, it will definitely be prominently advertised as such.) I still prefer the concept of positive check in, only because I much prefer to have best possible first round pairing and no holes on the floor. (But I can cope with having to do it.)
One “fun” issue with a check-in is coaches who verify that all of the team is there even when some are not coming while other coaches confirm only those players that they’ve seen and list others as no-shows even when some of the “no-show” players are already on site after arriving with their parents.
Repairing players of paired and non-showing opponents ends up with the first round finishing earlier (even if those games go the full time) than deferring the pairings until a check-in is finished.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the tournament allows half-point byes in the first round, why exclude late-registering players (who have not yet been paired) from this option?
Which “may” are you referring to? “The director may accept and pair entrants after the announced closing time for registration” seems to give the director total discretion. But “late entrants … may take a half-point bye if the tournament offers them” seems to give the player total discretion.
I agree. It’s usually a bad idea to take anybody’s word for it that they are coming, if they are not pre-paid. The only exception might be if they call on the morning of the tournament, saying they are running late. Even then, grill them a bit (“Where are you right now?”) and use your own innate credibility-check capacity to decide whether to pair them in the first round.
Agreed.
I agree, a positive check-in requires that a “positive check-in culture” must have already been established with the particular group of players you are directing. Conceivably, it might work with scholastic events involving very young players.
