Rule 28L2 Determination keeps getting the same guy a bye

[alaskalinuxuser]

Per rule 28L2, the bye is determined to be given on the first round to the lowest rated player.

Seems simple enough. The problem is that we have a small group in Alaska, and the same guy is going to get the first round bye in 3 tournaments in a row.

He got the first round bye last Saturday, he will get the first round bye this Saturday, and will get the first round bye in our tournament after that, unless someone with less than 380 shows up.

I don’t have a problem with this rule, but I feel like I am picking on him, and he seems bummed when it happens. He is already bummed for this Saturday, unless someone doesn’t show up and the number becomes even again. His biggest complaint is he gets less games.

If he doesn’t gain rating for a while, he is going to get the first round bye for a long time.

The rule book makes this first round bye really clear, unless I can use rule 28M and find an alternative, which I can’t at this time.

I don’t have extra players for a house player.
I don’t have the extra time for cross round pairings.
I don’t have multiple sections for cross section pairings.

I could enter the tournament myself, to even the number, but I am fairly busy as the TD, with no assistants, so I couldn’t play competitively.

I suppose I could be the house player, but my rating is 5 times his. So it seems kind of unfair, as I will be playing against fairly low rated opponents. Granted, it would be in the “extra games” section, so it wouldn’t affect tournament results… but I am not sure if that would be acceptable. Or if my opponents would want that.

Thoughts from the peanut gallery? And thoughts from the more experienced TDs?

[fpawn]

The main issue sems to be that your tournaments seem to consistently have an odd number of players. Unless you get exactly the same small group each time, I find this, ahem, odd. Even if you fudged the pairings and gave the bye in round 1 to someone else, the poor soul would still be likely to rendezvous with Mr. Bye in round 2, 3 or so forth. In other words, your problem defies solution unless you add (or subtract) one player.

By the way, is this is the player who stands to be rated above 500 on the September rating list, unless he somehow blows all of his gains?

Does this suggest a solution? Announce and pair your events using the latest MSA ratings for all players. This could mix up the seedings for other players rated close together.

Another question - Must the tournaments be swiss? How about hexes or octos? I realize a quad with just 3 is unpleasant, but a hex with 5 allows everyone 4 games. A mixture of formats yields a variety of pairings.

[ulmont]

@alaskalinuxuser

The rule book makes this first round bye really clear, unless I can use rule 28M and find an alternative, which I can’t at this time.

The rule book also talks about rule variations:

1B1. Notification. Any variations from these published rules, including variations discussed in this rulebook, should be posted and/or announced at the tournament prior to their use, preferably before the first round.

1B2. Major variations. A variation sufficiently major so that it might reasonably be expected to deter some players from entering should be mentioned in any Chess Life announcement and all other detailed pre-tournament publicity and posted and/or announced at the tournament.

Here’s the variation at use at my club:

28L2. Determination. To avoid repeatedly assigning a bye, particularly a first-round bye, to the same club players, in the first round it is club practice to give the bye to a player chosen randomly from the bottom half of the players by USCF rating, or to a player known to be arriving late. In subsequent rounds, it is club practice to give the bye to a player chosen randomly from the lowest score group. In each case players in attendance at the club for the first time, or who have provided equipment in use in the final round of the tournament, may be exempt from receiving a bye at the club director’s discretion (see also 28L5).

[alaskalinuxuser]

@fpawn

By the way, is this is the player who stands to be rated above 500 on the September rating list, unless he somehow blows all of his gains?

Does this suggest a solution? Announce and pair your events using the latest MSA ratings for all players. This could mix up the seedings for other players rated close together.

Another question - Must the tournaments be swiss? How about hexes or octos? I realize a quad with just 3 is unpleasant, but a hex with 5 allows everyone 4 games. A mixture of formats yields a variety of pairings.

Great points! We had 20 people signed up for last Saturday, but only 15 showed up. At the last tournament, 12 signed up, but one didn’t make it, making 11. Not sure why we keep ending up odd numbered, but that is the way it turns out.

I am a fairly new TD, so that is why I ask. I thought I had to use their published rating, not their prospective rating in MSA, but that might be an option, as it would put this guy third in line for a bye, but as you say, he still will “meet with Mr. Bye” in following rounds. So maybe it is unavoidable.

I do also like the idea of hexes and quads, but we have a little prize for the winner, so only the top group will have a prize? Granted, the lower group will likely not get the prize anyway, but it would keep them from it for sure. Though in the future, we will probably forgo prizes due to lack of funds. So this idea might have merit.

[alaskalinuxuser]

@ulmont

28L2. Determination. To avoid repeatedly assigning a bye, particularly a first-round bye, to the same club players, in the first round it is club practice to give the bye to a player chosen randomly from the bottom half of the players by USCF rating, or to a player known to be arriving late. In subsequent rounds, it is club practice to give the bye to a player chosen randomly from the lowest score group. In each case players in attendance at the club for the first time, or who have provided equipment in use in the final round of the tournament, may be exempt from receiving a bye at the club director’s discretion (see also 28L5).

Also great point!

Again, I am a fairly new TD, so I didn’t realize that I could bend the rules like that.

Edit: Though, I do worry a bit about bending the rules with my limited experience.

[wintdoan]

@alaskalinuxuser

I do also like the idea of hexes and quads, but we have a little prize for the winner, so only the top group will have a prize? Granted, the lower group will likely not get the prize anyway, but it would keep them from it for sure. Though in the future, we will probably forgo prizes due to lack of funds. So this idea might have merit.

No. Typically, you would have a prize in each quad or hex. ($10 e.f., maybe $30 1st prize per quad, with $10 for the house). One issue you can have with a series of quads is that you can end up with the same sets of 4 players each time if you have a relatively similar set of entries. (Unlike a Swiss, where even one change can completely scramble the pairings).

[chessgary]

I got lucky once and got the bottom 5 to agree to a hex RR everybody gets a bye with a slightly faster time control & starting games ASAP – I incentivized it by making it 100% of EF for prizes (60/40). I did mention worst case is their section might take an extra hour but they actually got done before the rest of the tournament.

The lowest rated players tend to get the worst tournament experience. We have an older player who is like 800-1000, he drives at least an hour to get to most tournaments, plays all the time, plays Mr. Bye and kids a lot, and not a lot of chances for prizes .

[ulmont]

@alaskalinuxuser

I am a fairly new TD, so that is why I ask. I thought I had to use their published rating, not their prospective rating in MSA

Nope, you’ve got even more built-in flexibility there.

28C. Ratings of players.
The rating entered on a player’s card is the last-published US Chess rating in the rating list specified in the Tournament Life section of Chess Life, unless use of a different rating list was specified in the advance publicity for the tournament, or the director has assigned a player a rating. Note that an assigned rating (28E) used for a tournament may or may not be used for future tournaments. See also the first TD TIP for 28A.

TD TIP: Players sometimes show the director a US Chess crosstable, or their rating from the US Chess web page. It is common practice to allow players to use those ratings if those ratings are higher than their last published rating (28E1).

28E. Assigned ratings for rated players.
The director may assign a rating to any rated player.

28E1. Rating level.
The assigned rating shall not be lower than the player’s last published US Chess rating, or its foreign or FIDE equivalent, adjusted if necessary, if the player lacks a US Chess rating.

[alaskalinuxuser]

@wintdoan

Typically, you would have a prize in each quad or hex. ($10 e.f., maybe $30 1st prize per quad, with $10 for the house)

Good to know what the standard is. I am not allowed to charge entry fees because the library will not allow it. This limits the funds available for prizes.

If we don’t play at the library, the cheapest place in town to rent is over $200 for four hours, making a very high entry fee to cover costs. I can’t seem to find any schools, businesses, or churches that want to give up space for free for a chess tournament.

So far, I have been finding local sponsors who have been kind enough to give me a little prize money.

[alaskalinuxuser]

@chessgary

The lowest rated players tend to get the worst tournament experience. We have an older player who is like 800-1000, he drives at least an hour to get to most tournaments, plays all the time, plays Mr. Bye and kids a lot, and not a lot of chances for prizes .

Good point, perhaps @wintdoan suggestion of quads or even sections might help me and my local players in this regard. It does seem that the system of swiss tournaments favour the higher rated players.

I personally feel the rating system isn’t supposed to be used to find the best players, but rather to help folks find “like skilled players” to play against, helping keep the game fun.

Maybe at my tournaments in the future I should have an under 1000 section and an over 1000 section. One major problem though is a huge influx of unrated players in my events, since Alaska has so few players.

[alaskalinuxuser]

@ulmont

Nope, you’ve got even more built-in flexibility there.

Thanks for highlighting this for me, I did read the book cover to cover once, but I still have a lot to learn.

[nolan]

Gaining experience as a TD is largely a matter of learning when to break the rules, and when not to.

[wintdoan]

@alaskalinuxuser

Maybe at my tournaments in the future I should have an under 1000 section and an over 1000 section. One major problem though is a huge influx of unrated players in my events, since Alaska has so few players.

If you try out a system of quads, it’s a good idea to not lump all the unrateds into a single section. If you have (e.g.) four unrateds, you’re better off splitting them two and two with your four lowest rated players. (Usually you can get at least some inkling of which of the unrateds may be better just by talking to them). If you have four unrateds who play only among themselves, their ratings will be somewhat arbitrary (they will spread out–a lot–from an average based upon their ages, so a player who goes 3-0 will probably be greatly overrated and a player who goes 0-3 may be seriously unrated). If, instead, they play a couple of rated players (which they would likely do in a 3 round Swiss), there is at least some connection between their ratings and the rest of your club.

[wintdoan]

@alaskalinuxuser

@wintdoan

Typically, you would have a prize in each quad or hex. ($10 e.f., maybe $30 1st prize per quad, with $10 for the house)

Good to know what the standard is. I am not allowed to charge entry fees because the library will not allow it. This limits the funds available for prizes.

I’m not sure I would say that’s a “standard”. It really depends on the club. I think another poster mentioned a 60-40 split for 1 and 2.

[nolan]

You can use a higher rating than someone’s official published rating in an event, such as their most recent unofficial rating, but you can’t use a rating below the official rating in effect for that event.

One strategy for dealing with an odd number is cross-round pairing, which can result in only one bye, in the last round, but it can mess with the schedule.

[alaskalinuxuser]

@nolan

One strategy for dealing with an odd number is cross-round pairing, which can result in only one bye, in the last round, but it can mess with the schedule.

This is a great idea. Perhaps if we can find a better venue with longer hours available, we can start doing this.

@wintdoan

you try out a system of quads, it’s a good idea to not lump all the unrateds into a single section.

Great idea. I feel we have a unique problem. My spring tournament had 11 unrated players out of 12 total players (almost 100%). Last Saturday, we had 6 unrated out of 15 total players (over 1/3 of the players). Such a high number of unrated players really makes it difficult to determine what to do with them for byes, etc.

But, overall you have all given me some great advice and ideas to think about!

[Micah_Smith]

@nolan

You can use a higher rating than someone’s official published rating in an event, such as their most recent unofficial rating, but you can’t use a rating below the official rating in effect for that event.

You can use a rating below a players official rating, such as a lower unofficial rating, as long as the variation is announced in the pre-tournament publicity.

[Mike_Commisso]

I know of an inactive club that required players to sign in upon arrival. In the event of an odd number, the last player to arrive got the bye. My club has a playing director willing to take a bye, and several players willing to play in the upper section in case of odd numbers in the lower section. We considered, but didn’t implement, a list of volunteers to take a bye on a rotating basis so the playing director didn’t have to sit out. A variation on this idea was to rotate a possible bye across all players (start from lowest rated, then next highest, etc, week over week. If a player’s assigned week didn’t result in a bye for them, they were clear until their next turn.)

Another thing to consider is how far players commute. For us, most are within 10-15 minutes, but a lot of players drive 30-60 minutes which explains why we didn’t use the approach to give a bye based on arrival time.

[nolan]

@Micah_Smith

You can use a rating below a players official rating, such as a lower unofficial rating, as long as the variation is announced in the pre-tournament publicity.

If it was just for pairing, I’m fine with that, but lower-than-official ratings should NEVER (IMHO) be allowed for section or prize eligibility purposes.

[Micah_Smith]

Well, it is allowed for section and prize eligibility if you announce the variation in advance. I’ve done it before for quads with no problem (although the prizes were just free entry into a future quad for the winner of each quad).