Switching house players

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I recently directed a tournament with 2 sections, Open and U1800. An odd number of players entered the top group (5), and all of them were over 1800. In order to make an even number, and with no other house players available, I put myself (rated 1626) into the 1st round of the Open section and did my best to give my registered opponent a competitive game. By the start of the 2nd round, another player was visiting the club. His rating was in an appropriate range, under 1800 like mine, so I asked him to take my place, but he person he was paired against complained. I can’t speak for him, especially since I disagreed, but the best I can remember, he said that he “wanted predictability”, and that using different house players “made each round seem like a different tournament”. The complaint was not based on the opponent being unfairly strong, or too low rated either, but just that the section lacked consistency. He also said that “it wasn’t done that way at other tournaments.” That house player was gone by the 3rd round, so I played again, and would have either put myself in or found a different house player for the 4th round, but it wasn’t necessary because there was a withdrawal (the lowest score, who would have gotten the lower rated opponent). The complaining player said that because I played in the first round, I should have played in every round. Was making this substitution improper?

1. 2140 D4  W5  W3  D2  3.0
2. 2026 W5  D3  L6  D1  2.0
3. 2013 W6  D2  L1  D4  2.0
4. 1983 D1  W7  D5  D3  2.5
5. 1918 L2  L1  D4  -U- 0.5
6. 1626 L3  -U- W2  -U- 1.0
7. 1546 -U- L4  -U- -U- 0.0
2

No.

It’s not uncommon when there are odd numbers in adjacent sections to play the lower section’s bye in the upper section each round.

3

The substitution was not improper. Many tournaments have late entries, early withdrawals (was there a complaint that when the player withdrew that made it a different tournament in the final round?), requested byes (half-point or zero-point depending on circumstances), cross-sectional pairings, and/or sporadically available house players.

4

It was perfectly proper. There’s no guarantee that the same house player will be used every round.

5

I’ve run events where I had a ‘designated house player’ who filled in only when there was an odd number of players in a section, I think once my DHP actually got in 7 games in a 5 round event, 6 games in one section (two games in round one) and one game in another section.

6

No, probably because I had no control over the w/d, but the player did say that he would have renewed his complaint if the withdrawal had not happened, and I had then used a completely different house player in that last round. Also, the question of tiebreaks was raised, but it was moot since the prizes were cash only, with ties acceptable.

7

The TD was within the rules. When players like this persist I advise them of their right to appeal to the USCF ($25, refundable if the complaint is not frivolous).

Tim Just
Rulebook editor
Rules Committee
TDCC Chair

8

It seems likely that, in this case, the complaint would indeed be ruled frivolous.

My guess is that the guy had a poor history against this particular house player, so was making up all kinds of “rules” so he wouldn’t have to play him.

Bill Smythe

9

I see what you mean, and in my experience many players do things like that, but not in this case. The player in question really did want “predictability” on who possible opponents would be once the tournament started. I could understand that, and I was even able to say back to him that as TD I wanted predictability also. Things don’t usually work out that way, though, and I expected my own play to be less than predictable itself if I did double duty during that round in question.

10

I agree, one of the worst ways to achieve predictability is for the TD to play in the tournament.

Bill Smythe

11

It is generally best if the TD does not play in the same event. It is a relatively common practice for small club events as otherwise those events might not have anybody willing to be the TD, but is more easily accepted when there is no monetary prize involved (or if the TD is only a house player for a number of rounds too small to have any chance of winning a prize).

The person cited by the OP is actually pushing for a questionable practice in an attempt to enforce a viewpoint that has no support within the rulebook.

P.S. I do regularly play in USCF-rated club events with no entry fee and no monetary prize fund (calling upon another TD if a ruling has to be made in my game) and I have played the very occasional round as a house player in events with monetary prize funds (most memorably in round one of an accelerated Swiss event where I was one of the two TDs keeping an eye on the room and simulaneously held a draw against a major contender for first who was about 300 points higher rated - in the last game to finish that round where my best move involved giving my opponent a late-middle-game protected passer on the sixth rank).