Another director and I have run a fair number of small, local tournaments over the past couple of years. For the most oart they go smoothly, but every once in a while we have the following issue come up:
We have two brothers, both fairly strong players, that show up maybe half the time. They do not like to play each other at all in tournaments, to the point where they enter different sections when possible.
However, we can’t alway support multiple sections at our small tournaments. We usually guarantee that we won’t pair them for the early rounds (1-2 for a four or five round tournament), but they sometimes get paired in later rounds.
When this happens, they absolutely will not play. One or the other always insists on taking a forfeit. It’s usually whichever has the lower score.
What do others think should be done here? I’ve tried explaining that I cannot simply refuse to pair them for the entire event. That got nowhere.
I’d be curious to know how other directors handle this type of situation.
My rule is not to pair relatives unless avoiding it would require breaking a scoregroup. If that’s not good enough, they’ll have to find another tournament.
It is interesting that they have different scores when paired together. Does that mean the section is small enough that you are forced to pair them even though they are in different score groups?
If the players are determined that one will forfeit, there’s really nothing you can do about it. For example, one player could simply sit at the board and lose on time without making a single move. That would be a non-rated loss.
I am sympathetic to siblings not wanting to be paired. I would try to accommodate the request if at all possible unless both players are in contention for a prize. Using SwissSys, I handle this by creating a team for the players and choosing “Team” under “Pair Restrictions” in the “Rules for Pairing” dialog. I also select the “Plus 2 pairings” option, leaving the “Plus 2 cutoff” at 2.
These are often four round, 10-12 player swiss events. It has happened that both are in contention for prizes. In fact, several months back, I remember that the forfeit point gave one of the brothers a tie for first place.
For the “law and order” TD a double forfeit is also possible. That might have some unintended side effects but it does address the issue of one player receiving a prize because of the other’s forfeit and the appearance of collusion.
Of course first issuing a “warning” about such antics by the players might work better (the threat is greater than…).
Tim is on the right track here. Since both players have a history of forfeiting when paired against each other, and they have taken turns actually doing so, you could adopt the following policy (but be sure to tell both players at the start of the tournament):
“I will take reasonable steps to avoid pairing you two against each other, but if (in my opinion) it is unreasonable to do so, you will both be given a zero-point bye for the round.”
Or, almost equivalently:
“If either of you forfeits against the other, both of you get zero points (double forfeit).”
Beware of strong players trying to bully the TD over pairings. The fact that they are brothers is just a convenient excuse they’ve come up with.
Presumably, this would be done like a half point bye, as opposed to a ratable draw?
I rather like the double zero point bye option.
Venus and Serena Williams don’t get free passes or forfeit when they get matched against each other at tennis tournaments, why should two brothers get treated differently at a chess tournament?
Unlike a tennis tournament where the loser is knocked out and the winner won all matches, a chess tournament has people still competing after losing. If a tennis tournament was run as a SS or RR then imagine all the complaints if the Williams sister lower in the standings just happened to lose that match (no matter how reasonable that result was).
If the brothers are very likely to play anyway then I’d opt to have them paired before the final two rounds.
To avoid the suspicion of the possibility of collusion in the final round of a tournament with decent class prizes I made a reasonable pairing change in the past to avoid an expert father paired against a master son (each still played a player very close to the originally paired rating).
Think back to Bobby Fischer deciding that the best way to win in a tournament with USSR players in it was to get a perfect score because then he didn’t have to worry about how many games they threw to each other. Any justification for his feelings could be cited in the case of sibling-sibling or parent-child pairings, particularly for a game played in the final round(s).
The problem with this is if they ever ARE in contention for a prize, one of them gets a full point. They may call it a forfeit - but others might be justified in seeing it as collusion.
I think this is the correct thing to do. I have done so at a tournament before where two brothers (both national masters) were dominating the field. Fortunately I was able to do this in round 3 of a 4-round 8 player section so it didn’t close out the field. I simply treated it an unrated draw. Everyone at the tournament was happy with the decision.
Hi - I’ve run into this in small events before. This has also happened in pool tournaments I’ve run, where players may pre-arrange a result. (This is especially true if there happens to be a calcutta in which one or both players have bid and are still alive.)
The “L&O” approach is best in larger tournaments, because you have to protect the field. In a smaller event, though, it’s tougher because you risk chasing away 20% of your future entry pool.
My solution is to try and advise both players, before they record a result, that an arranged result will garner both players a forfeit loss, before they record a result. Perhaps a generic announcement prior to round one (or in your advertising) would be good too. One benefit of that approach: if they do it again, you can simply record the double-forfeit and keep moving.
Usually, when you have a chronic problem at your tournaments, imposing a sanction once gets their attention. Most players won’t risk having that happen again - but these two probably won’t believe you until you actually double-forfeit them once.
Don’t let these guys run over you at the tournament. You have to stand up for the other players. and, if you do it this time, the word will get out that players shouldn’t try to jack with you. Good luck with your future events.
See rule book page 85 section 20L “Manipulating results”
What those brothers have done and apparently continue to do is blatantly illegal according to the above section. It “may result in severe sanctions including revocation of USCF membership”.
In addition, it is a clear violation of more than one item in chapter 6, beginning at page 232: USCF Code of Ethics.
If the one forfeiting is usually the one with the lower score, that is Prima Facia evidence of dishonesty and poor sportsmanship. The initiator of this forum item should give serious thought to taking this further - to the USCF.
At the least, he should ban the two from any tournament he organizes.
Art Byers, President, The New Mexico Chess Organization
and a Local TD
Familiarity really does breed contempt. This is Bill Goichberg’s secret weapon. He can come in with his large big money tournaments and pick up the players that are tired of seeing the same old faces week after week.
we have a weekly Monday night tournament with 20 in the higher section and 10 in the lower section. probably 70% of the players are the same from week to week. I don’t see much complaining over playing the same people over and over. And for that matter. CCA tried to do an open in our city for two years and it didn’t really pan out because most of the locals who played weekly simply didn’t show up. So, I don’t really see the connection?
and, if you do it this time, the word will get out that players shouldn’t try to jack with you. Good luck with your future events.