A stated in other posts, I think it was agreed that meant one per section per round.
That would seem to be adequate to require human response rather than an automated approval, but I can think of some cases where it wouldn’t necessarily work and a human would aprove:
Multiple forfeits - it might well be that multiple forfeits occur in the round where you either became aware of them at different times (and so didn’t pair those two players together, but instead used multiple house players to give them a game) or the players had such a difference in rating/age that you wanted to pair them more appropriately with two available house players.
Late re-entries - after pairing and using one house player, you may get somebody coming back into the event (when it is to late to repair) for a valid reason (for example was paired and forfeited the previous round when he was supposed to get a requested bye) and you need to use a second house player.
Extra section - often all the weird games from various sections are thrown together into one misc section. So, the one house player per section may all end up appearring together in this hybrid section.
In general, most of these cases won’t fall under consideration because in most/many cases the house players will be current members anyway.
It looks like we’re mostly agreeing with each other, so let me describe how house player requests currently work. (I’m assuming everyone here knows that membership exception requests are a part of the tournament submission process using the online interface in the TD/Affiliate Support Area.)
Automatic approval is somewhat restrictive. In general automatic approval is only granted when the house player has a final score of 50% or less and did not play in every round. It also limits the number of house players per round per section to 1.
Any requests that aren’t automatically approved have to be reviewed by the USCF staff. The online interface the staff uses for this shows, among other things, the player’s results. A house player who was paired in rounds 1, 3 and 4 might have something like this: LBWLUU.
Walter Brown has been reviewing these requests since mid-April, but he’s on a leave of absence and until we get someone else trained I’m not sure who’ll be reviewing them, possibly me.
If the section is labeled ‘extra games’, the USCF staffer reviewing the exception requests can be more tolerant on house players.
Similarly, for unusual situations such as multiple schedules, multiple forfeits, etc, there 's a ‘comments’ field on the Membership Exception Request form, which the TD can use to explain why the house player request should be manually approved.
As to house player requests being the default, what other default would people prefer? (Good web form design means that with radio buttons there should be SOME default.)
If the pairings are up, the player can refuse to play the house man. If the pairings are up, the player can reject to play. This is the reason why the house man works best if paired within the roster, before the pairings are done. If the director has the pairings up, the player with the bye has to agree to give it up. Since it was a forced bye, the player will get a full point bye.
The player can still get a full point bye, and still play the house man. The director can place the game in the extra rated section. If the house man and the player with the bye do not mind, would not have a problem with a extra rated section. If the house man is more then 300 points then the player with the bye, it should be in an extra rated section. The player would still have a full point bye in the round, plus play the house man in the extra rated section.
Generally speaking, yes. The “TD Tip” under 28M1 says,
“Directors have found it useful to first ask the player receiving the bye if they would like to keep the bye or play a house player. Some players prefer to take the bye to rest for the next round or assure that they will not be assigned a bye in future rounds. Directors and organizers who require the odd player to essay agame against a house player, rather than give the player the choice, would be wise to announce this policy in pre-tournament publicity and at the site. A popular alternative, described below, is to use a permanent house player, not eligible for prizes, who is paired normally, not necessarily against the odd player who would have received the bye.”
To be honest, I don’t know of any place where the latter policy is “popular.” Perhaps those who use it can comment.
I frequently use my wife (~1300) as a house player. It seems a lot more interesting to pair her “normally” rather than give her to the person who would have gotten a bye. I don’t think that many of the players in my events even consider her a house player.
The house man should be paired normally. Just to make sure the house man is paired normally, just have the house man get half-point byes for each round they do not play. If the house man is used for the first time for round 4, the house man should have 1.5 point byes.
What makes the house man unpopular, if the house man is rated as a class A player, then paired in round 4 with zero points. The average rating in round 4 with 0-3 should not average as class A players. If going into round 4 with 1.5 points, the rating should not be as bad of a issue.
If the director has a house man, just register the player and give all the rounds as half-point byes. If you need the player just change the bye and accept the person in the round.
This is a permissible variation, but it requires that you have someone willing to stick around for the whole tournament with no assurance of ever being paired. If you’re running a 90-minute “Quick Chess” tournament this isn’t a problem, but it’s proabbly not going to work for a 5-round weekender.
My basic objection to the “permanent house player” idea is that it means people who might easily be in contention for class prizes will be playing a “non-competitor” each round. This strikes me as unfair, but more to the point, as more likely to provoke complaints from the players.
Never had anyone have a complaint about the variation. In the past had my assistant tournament director be the house man. Some times had the assistant tournament director play out all the rounds. Had a number of complaints if I gave someone a full point bye. Some players are going to withdraw, the point to have a permanent house man … is to make sure the rounds are even. There are times, I will be the playing director, just to make sure the rounds are even. The players do not have to worry about me as a playing director. Will have to say I play very poor as a playing director. As I am thinking about other issues then my own game.
The reason I like a house man, as I know players are not happy to get the full point bye. The players that do get the bye, are going to be the weaker players in the roster. Out of group, most are going to have a performance rating then a established rating. The goal is to get everyone a established rating as soon as they can. Its’ my personal judgement, if I give someone a full point bye in the round, I have failed that player. If the person has a performance rating, would feel much worse to give this player a full point bye.
The only time I would reject the variation, if the person on the bottom of the roster is a child. Not that many adults want to play a game with a child. If there is a child in the roster, and the round needs a house man. Would play an extra rated game with the kid, and give the child a full point bye. Have seen the face of the adults when they have zero points going onto the last round, then paired with the child. The adult is not a happy camper.
That could indeed be reasonable, depending on the circumstances. I’d make just two small suggestions. First, don’t use a house player whose rating would put him in the top half of the section (you’ve already said you agree with this). Second, be flexible with the number of half-point byes you give the house player. In your round-4 example, if the house player has a rating near the very bottom of the section, you might want to give him 1.0 or 0.5 (or even 0.0) instead of 1.5 points.
I wish the Delegates had never allowed non-member house players in the first place, as it’s an invitation to abuse. Given that they did, however, the policies you outlined make complete sense.
That is a good idea! It would be best to have the house man in the average score group. For example of 50 entries, the house man as a class A player would not fit well in the score group of 0 - 3. If the house man is a class D player, the house man would fit much better.
In any tournament, would not want to have the house man if the rating would be in the top half of the players. If I did have a strong player, it would be best to have the games in the extra rated section. If having a extra rated section, it would be best having the scholastic player that would get the bye in that section.
Think of it this way Nolan, would it be ethical for you to be the house man in a scholastic event? You would be in the top half of the tournament, think about it.
What I mean by my past statement. I would not want a house man if the house man is a Master, in the tournament with the players around class D. If the average rating is 1250, with 19 players. It would be unfair to have the master as the house man.
I’m just looking for the house man that should not win the tournament or be in the prize fund. If I have to use the house man for all the rounds, the house man should not get any prize money. The standard for the house man is not to win any prize. If the house man is that strong, if there was agreement before the start of the tournament not to take the prize. Then the only person that would win the prize would be the director/organizer. This is the reason I only want the house man in the bottom of the roster not at the top of the roster.
If the house man has the score to win a prize, who do I give this prize too, since I have plus-score tournaments? If the house man should not get the prize, and there is no way with a plus score tournament to give the money to the players. The only person that could get the prize money would be myself. That would be very unethical. If I give the money to the house man, that did play for free, that would be unethical. It would be fair to give all the players equal amount of money if they win a prize. What director would be able to give $1.47 to each and every prize winner.
If I’m going to have a house man, would want a coffee house player that never went to a tournament in the first place. Would even pay out of my pocket the house mans USCF membership. I’m sure the house man would not win a prize, even if he did it would still not cover the players free USCF membership. That would be more acceptable to me, as I would still be in the loss … if the person did win a prize.
If I find someone, that is so strong the player that should go 4-0. Would not the house man in a plus-score tournament be unethical? The house man should not be so strong as to be in the top half.
Can you tell me why having a house man on call for the whole tournament is wrong? Can you tell me why it is wrong, to have a house man before the start of the tournament? Can you tell me why it is worng, for myself to pay for the house mans USCF membership? Most directors/organizers would not pay to have a house man on call. Most directors/organizers would not pay for the house mans USCF membership.
It is important to have a house man, as the idea of a forced bye is almost as bad as a forfeit win with the clock. If the player is going to drive miles to a tournament, they want to play not get a forced bye. Can understand why players do not like a strong house player. Its’ very much up to the director, to have the house player play in the rating group or only the person that would have gotten a bye. They are both sound and fine.
The reason I do not want the house man to be in the top group or the top roster. Its’ a little unfair to have such a strong house man. Could have a master in the top 15 in the state of Michigan, just to be the house man. Myself feel it would be unfair havings such a strong player. It would be unfair to have him play in his score group. It would also be unfair to have him paired with the player that would have gotten the bye.
Nolan I want to be fair to the players, not just take their money and run. If going to have a house man, want someone that has experence in tournaments. Not looking for a strong player, just someone that can even out the rounds. There are a number of coffee house players, most of them are former USCF members. If I do not have a assistant tournament director fill in as a house man. Would be willing to find a former USCF member, pay for the membership in the case the player has to play.
Why is that unfair? Why having at best, a former USCF member at the tournament average rating or a little below would be bad? Why would it be bad for myself to pay for this house mans USCF membership? Could find a Master, it would not make the players happy if they are paired up with him.
Want to build up the USCF memberships one at a time. If I can build it up with a former USCF member that hangs out in the coffee house … with a free membership just to be the house man. Would have done my small part to build the USCF memberships. Would have also done my small part to make sure nobody had a forced bye. Why would this be so wrong? If I do this for the players, why would it be so wrong? Why cannot the house man be used like this? What good would it do to have someone so much stronger then the field be the house man.
Douglas, you don’t understand the subject of this thread, you don’t appear to understand when and how to use house players, and you’re wasting everyone’s time with your overlong and irrelevant posts.
Bill, where in this thread has ANYONE advocated using high rated players (relative to the other players in the section) as house players? That’s not what this thread was about!
I’m amazed you’re defending the highjacking of this thread.
Moreover, if you review my post on when non-member house player requests are automatically granted, it’s clear that high-ranked players will generally not qualify as house players.
It’s only a small step from “what’s a house player?” (i.e. “what definition of house player should MSA use?”) to “what kinds of players make ideal house players?” – hardly enough to call it a hijacking.