Nobody plays them, so there is no system for reporting them?
I started out with this
Then SwissSys tells me to convert the round robin files (to SS?) but it won’t for more than 7 rounds, and then I discovered that SwissSys files of double round robin tournaments will not function for the USCF site. So I go to manually enter the tournament and there is no provision for that.
I don’t understand what the question is.
Alex Relyea
I think the question is how to submit a double round robin tournament [Dbl RR] online to USCF. The original poster is stating that SwissSys could not successfully upload to USCF a Dbl RR event.
I would think you could always submit a Dbl RR as 2 sections of the same tournament, with both sections being Round Robin with the same players.
Larry S. Cohen
Suppose you have an 10 player double RR event. I’m fairly sure that’s too many rounds for Swis-Swis, I’m not sure what the round limit on WinTD is these days.
The USCF’s internal file structure will accomodate 32 rounds. (At the time, that seemed like a limit we’d never hit, with Blitz events that’s not so definite these days.)
You have two options for entering them online. Both use the Crenshaw-Berger tables to indicate who played whom in each round. (In fact, that’s what both WinTD and Swis-Sys do when creating upload files for double RR events.)
One is to have an 10 player 18 round event, where each player has two rounds against all the other players.
The other is to have a 20 player 9 round event, with player 1 also being player 11, etc. Then players 1-10 play a RR against each other and players 11-20 do the same. You should be able to do this in both WinTD and SwisSys, but you’ll have to do the pairings yourself.
You could also do it as two sections, but that could affect the awarding of bonus points.
WinTD can handle up to twelve players in a RR, with as many “games per match” as you want. Because you enter the results of double RR’s as WW, WD, etc. (rather than just 0.0-2.0 points), it will do the USCF report as (for instance) 22 rounds for a 12 player double RR.
While the major reason why we do not support direct entry of double-RR events in the online event editor is that historically there just weren’t that many of them, another is that there are more than 3 possible result codes for each round in a USCF crosstable, some of which I’m not sure pairing programs need to deal with.
Should we ever decide to support direct entry of double-RR events, we would still need most if not all of these result types:
Win
Loss
Draw
Unpaired
Half Point Bye
Full Point Bye
Zero Point Bye
Forfeit Win
Forfeit Loss (Double Forfeit Loss could be considered a separate result type)
Forfeit Draw (Has anyone ever actually USED one of these??)
Win (but not consistent with opponent result)
Loss (but not consistent with opponent result)
Draw (but not consistent with opponent result)
Personally, I’m not sure there’s any difference between ‘unpaired’ and ‘zero point bye’, but some TDs may insist otherwise.
You can “split results” on a game in WinTD which can produce such wonders as White wins, Black forfeit draws.
I’m not sure I’ve ever tried it (and I hope no TD has ever felt the need to use such a split result), but I suspect the validator would probably insist on the win being encoded as ‘win but inconsistent with opponent result’. That’s so we know not to flag that game as inconsistently coded. And yes, White’s game would be rated and Black’s game would not be rated. Ugh!
Computing tie breaks is left as an exercise for the reader.
I had a player once request a zero point bye in the fifth round because he was more than a full point ahead of the field after four rounds and wanted to go home early. The TD allowed it, and paid him the prize. Showing that result in the crosstable is the only reason I can think of to have a “zero point bye” as opposed to an unplayed game.
Alex Relyea
You have not worked a national scholastic lately. They are rare, but there are split results at times.
I don’t need to work a National Scholastic to be aware of the number of split results, I deal with the consequences of those decisions every time I work on ratings system programming. 
It looks like ‘Win-Win’ and ‘Win-Draw’ are the two most frequently used split results. I didn’t see a ‘Win-Forfeit Draw’ result, but those would be tricky to search for. I do know that the total number of ratable results each month (counting each player separately) is often an odd number, and that’s a direct consequence of reporting split results where only one player’s result is ratable.
What WinTD does when you “split results” is that it creates two separate game records; one for each player. (There’s a << indicator that shows who “owns” the game). If you don’t split results, then the results of a game have to be consistent—if you change it so the Black won, then White, per force, lost; if A played Black, then B played White. If you want to do any type of inconsistent result, you have to split the results, at which point you can do anything you want, thus the possibility of the win-forfeit draw, not that anyone has ever asked how to do that. You could also have consistent results with inconsistent colors; i.e. both players having White if the players played the wrong color and you decide that it’s better to treat them both as having played White so neither can benefit from the (perhaps not a) mistake.
One thing we do not allow is inconsistencies in color assignment. I can see why for pairing purposes in subsequent rounds a TD might wish to treat both players as if they had received white (or black) in some game, but I don’t see any advantages to permitting that type of inconsistency in USCF records.
In the single round robin the limit seems to be 14 rounds. as I need to set up as 2 singles, thats my limit.
Yes, this works, thank you.
But that would affect the ratings. If a player would gain, say, 50 points in each “half” of a double-round tournament, he might gain only, say, 95 points instead of 100 if the two are separated, because his pre-event rating for the second half would be his post-event rating from the first half.
Not to mention bonus points.
Bill Smythe