I could use some thoughts on this situation. In a four round tournament with one game per week, we have arrived at the final round. Here are the top brackets:
A (1615) 3.0 (B-W)
B (1820) (BWB)
C (1700) 2.5 (WBW)
D (1225) (WBW)
E (1115) 2.0 (WWB)
Only previous pairings to avoid are (B vs C) and (B vs D). The pairings were made as B-A and D-C on the top boards. Subsequently the TD learns that player A played his third round game as Black by mistake. This was a postponed game played on an alternate date and the players simply got it wrong when starting their game. These are fair players and no ulterior motives are suspected.
Because of this, the original pairings would give A three blacks (+ a game won by forfeit) - a rather unfortunate situation. There is ample time to change the pairings. Which point of view would you adopt:
(1) A’s bad color balance is self-inflicted, and he should not be rewarded with an easier opponent, which would occur if the pairings were redone.
(2) Redo the pairings with the actual colors from round 3.
I would be inclined toward approach (1). Player A got three blacks by his own fault. If the TD were to take approach (2), that might lead to players deliberately taking an unassigned black against a weaker player early on, hoping to get white in a later, more critical round.
I have no idea what the rules say, but I made the wrong color mistake once in a middle round of a 7 round event. The director kept the colors as initially posted, although he certainly could have fixed it for the later rounds. I ended up with 5 blacks. The best argument for changing them may well be that my opponent (who I suspect knew of the error) shouldn’t get the benefit of the error. I deserved what I got, but he got rewarded.
I think I remember reading that you are supposed to record them as playing the colors they actually played and pair them from that point on based on those colors played. I’ll look for the actual rule later.
If I didn’t learn of it until after the next round started, I wouldn’t change pairings, I would correct the colors for pairing of subsequent rounds.
If I learned of the color switch after pairings were announced (but before the round started) for the next round, I don’t know that I’d re-pair unless it dramatically affected someone’s else’s due color.
If I learned of it before pairings were announced or if I decided to re-pair the round after pairings were announced, I’d probably treat both players as if they had an unplayed game for color purposes for THAT round but take the actual colors played into account in subsequent rounds.
There doesn’t seem to be anything explicit in the rules about recognizing the color reversal for later pairings. Rule 11F only says that the game must continue with the incorrect initial position after black’s 10th move. This one seems to fall in the area of TD discretion.
I have always reflected the color reversal in pairings following its discovery, but will not re-pair a following round already paired and posted. However, if the reversal caused pairing difficulty in the following round, the reversal may not be taken into account for the sake of better pairings. Also, if there appeared to be a pattern of repeat reversals by the same player, I might be inclined to not reflect a case where they incorrectly played as black to make a point and consider it a penalty to accompany the warning. If the same player is repeatedly taking white when not assigned, recurrence after a warning might result in being sidelined for a round or more, especially if there are an odd number of players.
Thanks everyone for your answers. My decision was to let the already posted pairings stand. Of course it helped that the player involved told me, he recognized this was his mistake and that he was fine taking three blacks in a row.
I’d be inclined to reserve the right to pair future rounds (for either or both players) according to whatever color assumption is convenient at the time.
However, as soon as I pair one of the players, in some future round, according to his actual (incorrect) color in the original round, I’d be inclined to stay with that player’s actual color when pairing ALL future rounds after that. I wouldn’t want to switch back from assuming the actual color to assuming the “correct” color.
Incidentally, ignoring the players’ color mistake for a moment, isn’t there a better way to pair round 4?
How about A vs C, and B vs E? That way, the only player getting the wrong color is the one who has had equal colors anyway. (“Equalization takes priority over alternation.”) Since this transposition would be made to improve color equalization, a switch of up to 200 points is permissible. 1820 and 1700 are within 200, as are 1225 and 1115.
You can argue that swapping B and C is an interchange (switch between halves of a score group) rather than a transposition, and an interchange is subject to an 80-point limit. If B and C were 40 points closer then the case for that swap is much stronger.
Yes, it’s definitely an interchange, and you make a good point. But the prohibition against large interchanges seems to be less absolute than you claim:
In this case, 29E5e does not apply, since nothing is “as effective in minimizing color conflicts” as the interchange.