What's a 'house player'?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

USCF rules permit house players to play without being USCF members. (I remember when this rule was passed by the Delegates in 1990, though I cannot find an explicit reference to it in the current rulebook.)

However, I see what appears to me to be a lot of abuse of this privilege. I see events with 20 or 30 players submitting requests for four or five house players.

To me, a house player is someone who did NOT register for the event (including players permitted to register for free), is NOT eligible for prizes, and is playing to even out the number of players in a round for the convenience of the registered players, so that there aren’t full-point byes issued to the odd player.

I don’t think TDs should be permitted to declare someone a house player if the TD discovers, possibly after the fact, that the player is not a current USCF member. The organizer/TD is expected under rule 23C to collect USCF memberships from non-members, except in situations where the event is exempt from the membership requirements.

In a small event (under 100 players), I would not expect there to be more than one house player in any round.

What do others think of that restrictive a definition?

2

Too restrictive. In a multi-section tournament, it is possible to have two or three house players in a single round (though I normally try to cross-pair the byes first). I agree with your fourth paragraph, but I doubt there is any way to enforce this other than by an honor system.

3

I would certainly understand one house player per section for a terribly unlucky director. Different sections sometimes have rounds that start at different times or there might be other reasons why cross-pairing is not done.

But I think it should be clear what is expected from a TD regarding a house player. For example - do we still get name and address and phone number information? If so you can contact the multiple house players in an odd situation and see what’s going on. Or contact the TD. We do agree to abide by certain rules and regulations - What I expect in return is that irregularities are researched so that my certification has some integrity to it.

4

There should only be one and only one house player per-section. The reason I have opens then mini-swiss, as I can control the odd players with the house man. At this time I do not have a house man, only myself in the case of odd number of people in the round.

Do not understand why the USCF would let a number of non-USCF members be the house man. There is no rational reason to have a house man, and have the round with odd number of people. The only reason for a house man, is to make the round have an even number of people.

If I did pick a house man without a USCF membership, would pay for the trial membership myself. The players want the tournament rated as soon as it can be. I’m not in the mood to have the tournament not rated because of a membership issue. If it cost myself a trial membership, its’ just part of having a tournament.

5

As a player, I would find it extremely annoying to have someone telephone me after the tournament asking questions. As a TD – even if you have odd players in several sections, it is not always possible to pair them. One or more of them may prefer to get the bye (whether the TD can force them to play is an interesting question, but not relevant to this thread. I won’t.), or the rating difference may be too great (I’m probably not going to pair the 900-rated bye in the U1400 section with the 1900 bye in the Open).

Another poster suggested that there should be only one house player per section. This suggests that he is unfamiliar with anything other than small local tournaments where everyone knows everyone.

If you really see the abuse of the houseman exception as a problem (seems pretty trivial to me), the solution is to abolish it and enforce the $2/game fee for nonmembers. This might result in some people not getting a game. How much is good will worth?

6

I didn’t mean to suggest that every non-member be called. I would expect we don’t have enough people (even volunteers!) for that.

But if some director has 4 non-members in one section - or worse, does it repeadtedly - shouldn’t that be investigated?

Just knowing that we do call occasionally would act as a deterrent, wouldn’t it? At least knowing in advance that you can have as many non-members play as you want without any reprisal can’t be a good thing, human nature being what it is.

And I am guilty of being familiar only with small local tournaments (at least from the TD vantage point). Why would you need more than one house man per section?

7

Most of my house players are USCF members, so this isn’t really a problem, but it seems very likely that you can have a player available for one round but not another round. I’d be very suspicious of more than one house player per round per section.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that the default for the exception requests is for a house player. I accidentally put in the wrong ID number for player in a tournament back in December, and I also had some foreign titled players, so when I put them in for exceptions something happened that got all of them submitted as house players. I got told that neither life members nor foreign GMs had to be treated as house players.

Alex Relyea

8

You shouldn’t, as long as you mean “per round.” This would indeed be evidence (though not proof) that the TD was abusing the HM rule. However, the one the USCF should go after is the TD, not the player. Frankly, as a player, I would treat a telephone call like that the same as any other junk phone call – I wouldn’t answer.

9

Technically there is no $2 per round fee, at least not one specifically authorized by the Delegates. That option (the length-of-tournament membership) was dropped in 1990 under the theory that the USCF should only rate adult games between members. (There are a few adult exceptions, such as foreign titled players, but most rated games involving non-members are under the JTP rules for scholastic events.)

Dropping the length-of-tournament membership was also why the non-member house player rule was passed in 1990.

The $2 per round penalty for non-members showed up soon afterwards (I’m not sure exactly when.) It has been inconsistently used and is not intended as an alternative for players other than paying dues.

At least one organizer was very specifically told NOT to mention it on his tournament flyers.

I tried to get Bill Goichberg to reinstitute the length-of-tournament membership option under the ED’s ‘promotional membership’ powers when he was the ED, we never found a rate he would agree to. (I think $2 per round is too low based on current adult dues rates, Bill was at one time leaning towards $5 per round, but with a one month membership for each $5.)

Bill also instituted a credit rule as part of the TD/Affiliate Support Area’s online tournament submission process, using membship exception requests. It tolerates a few non-members (around 2%) based on the number of current members in the tournament, so it gets called into play mostly in larger tournaments, ones with 100 or more players.

Obviously, my one house player per round limit was on a per section basis. Are there situations (perhaps in really large events like the US Open) in which it makes sense to have more than one house player in a section in the same round?

10

Reading your post again, I wonder if I misunderstood it originally. Are you objecting to a tournament having, say, a different house player each round? This would be a little unusual, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with it. Very few tournaments keep someone around for two days waiting to play a house game. When I need a house player, I go to the skittles room and yell for a volunteer. Having the same one each round would be the exception, not the rule.

11

I don’t have a problem with a different house player in each round, it might even be something we might want to encourage as it give more non-members a taste of tournament chess. (I’ve had more than one of my non-member house players over the years decide to enter my next tournament, joining or rejoining the USCF in the process.)

This is a problem I’ve been working on since starting on the online tournament submission process. It’s hard to come up with a rule that is fair to TDs as well as to the USCF. (My estimate was that in 2004 we lost at least $25,000 in membership dues because of situations where adults were permitted to play in events without being members.)

The requests I was objecting to earlier today were in an event in which there were at least four requests for house players in a tournament that had about 30 players overall. Most if not all of the ‘house players’ played in EVERY round.

Those requests were denied.

12

If the section has 9 players or 99 players, it is still odd number of people. If you have a house man, the house man should only be paired if you know someone would get a bye. The house man should only be in the round, if there is odd number of people. If the house man is used, the house man would make the round have an even number of people. When there are even number of people, the pairings can be done.

If the house man is used, after the pairings are done. The round pairings should be rejected, as the director should have used the house man before the pairings were done in the first place. If the pairings are not rejected, the player with the bye should still get a full point bye if the house mans rating is 200 points higher then the player with the bye. The game should be placed in a extra rated section.

It does not matter if the section has 9 people or 4,999 people, its a odd numbers and someone would get a bye. There is no rational reason to have more then one house man, as the house man should be paired like everyone else in the tournament. The person that could have had a bye, would be paired up with someone in the roster.

If the USCF did go back to the $2 per-game fee for non-USCF members would support it. As I have paid the $25 trial membership fee, just to make sure the tournament (Western Michigan Open V) would be rated. Have even paid for two $25 trial membership fees, so I can play them in a match. Would still call the $2 per-game fee a house man. If I did have a house man, have not had one since last year. The house man would have to be a current USCF member.

The problem I see, is the abuse of more then one house man. The director should have a house man before the start of the tournament. In the past my assistant tournament director was my house man. If the director has more then one house man per-section, that is not a current USCF member, it is cheating the USCF with membership fees, and the players that did pay for the membership fees. The house man should only be used to give the section an even number of players.

If you want to play in the tournament, you have to be a current USCF member. If I declare a number of non-USCF members as the house man, then I am cheating myself as I am a current USCF member. Would be cheating anyone with a current USCF membership, if I let one non-USCF member play for free. There is no rational reason to have two house men in the same round, or a rational reason to have a house man that makes the round odd.

13

I will make one attempt to clarify this.

Except for small club tournaments, no TD is going to keep someone on call to be a house player. When you need one, you call for a volunteer. The suggestion that you should need only one house player per section per tournament is naive.

Pairing the house man “normally” (rather than against the bye) is an acceptable alternative (see p. 123), but this is rarely done and is probably not worth the trouble except in special cases.

I agree that using more than one house player per section per round is suspicious, as is having a houseman play all the rounds, though neither is dispositive. (The latter is, after all, explicitly mentioned (“permanent house player”) on pp. 123-124.)

14

I had a situation once where there was no on-site registration (because it is part of a much larger event that attracts over 14,000 participants) and a player who would have been in the bottom third or so of the field showed up that morning hoping to play.

I told him he could be the house player. It turned out we had an odd number in all 5 rounds (and a different odd number each time!) so he was paired in every round. He was not eligible for a prize, though had he been eligible he would have just missed getting one.

However, there was just that one house player in that 40 player section.

15

The chief tournament director can use the assistant tournament director(s), or the tournament aides. For the larger events, the tournament aides would be better as the house men. Not all the tournament aides want to play in all the rounds, or want to play in the tournament even if the section has a odd number of people. The tournament aides have been under looked with a number of directors. If I was going to have a large event, would have a roster of possible house men set up weeks before the event.

Asking for a volunteer during the tournament, only proves how incompetent the chief tournament director is. If the tournament is large, there should be a number of directors / tournament aides in the pool for the house man. If the tournament does have a large number of sections. The chief tournament director should plan to find the house men, weeks before the first round.

If the house man is not paired, give the house man a half point bye. The problem to place the house man without half-point byes, as the house man can have a high USCF rating. Being paired in later rounds with zero points, could be paired with weaker players with poor results. This could give the house man a weaker opponent during the round, making the house man with an unfair pairing.

16

Doug, I’m sorry to be blunt, but please stop wasting space writing about things you don’t understand. Assistant TDs are there to work, and if they have the time to spend 2-4 hours playing a game they are being grossly overpaid. If my budget ran to a “pool of tournament aides,” I’d be able to retire after a few more events.

The rulebook makes some arguments for pairing housemen “normally,” but I’m not convinced. The advantage of always pairing the HM against the odd man is that it will almost certainly not affect prize allocation.

17

High-rated players should not be used as house players. This would be unfair to the house players’ opponents.

Ideally, the house player in a B section should be a C player, etc – a player whose rating would put him near the bottom of the wall chart in that section.

Bill Smythe

18

Bill:

That is my statement Bill, we are in agreement on it. Have the house man with the same rating in the section. If the house man does not have a game in the round give the house man a half point bye. If you have the house man play in round 3 for the first time, with zero points the house man can play someone with a much lower rating. The house man should not be assigned to play someone after the pairing are up. As the rating of the house man and the opponent can be unfair to the person.

19

John, there is no problem to pay someone to be the house man. If anyone ask myself why I like opens, as I only need to have one house man. Players come to the tournament to play chess, not to get a full point bye. It would be best to have the tournament aides be the house man, the assistant tournament directors can take away from other work, the house man is working.

If I was going to have a tournament with more then 50 people, would pay to have someone as the house man. Would also like the house man have other skills, it is a cost any director should have. If I had to find a house man, would find someone that wants to play in the tournament but does not have the money. Willing to pay for a one year USCF membership, and free entry into the tournament. This works well for a one section open, as it does not matter what the rating or skills the house man has.

The director/organizer should not get cheap with the players. Having someone on the pay role as the house man, is not a bad idea. Finding someone at the last minute, would be like finding scoresheets at the last minute. Just organize and spend the money, its’ not the players problem.

20

Mike,

The only thing I can think of is for a tournament with different schedules, like the U.S. Open. I find it hard to imagine that there could be a need for more than one house player for rounds with the same time control that start at the same time.

Alex Relyea