Just wondering how many directors enforce 32C1, regarding withdrawing players. The rule begins with “unless the director determines otherwise…” I would ask the forum in which cases would a TD determine otherwise?
We had a player in a 3 rd swiss yesterday withdraw after 2 rounds, with a score of 2-0. He had a poker tournament to attend!!! At the end of the tournament, he had scored best in his class (D/E), but the TD agreed with my conclusion that having withdrawn, the next player in line was entitled to 1st in the class. I should mention that there was also a 2nd place in that class, which the TD didn’t pay to anyone, as there was a low attendance in that class (4 players, 2 withdrawn, and one sharing parts of 2nd overall/B/C), and in accord with 32C1, no one else had qualified. I’m wondering now, if we should have gone on and awarded 2nd place to the withdrawn player.
32C1. Withdrawals. Unless the director decides otherwise, players who fail to complete the tournament are not entitled to prize.
Do not know of any otherwise, with any claim too withdraw, is a personal wish not to complete the tournament. Everyone came to the tournament to play, if one person withdrawal from the event: it could force the director to give a bye, to someone that wanted to play. If someone with a perfect score withdraws in the last round, then gets a prize. It could force someone on the bottom rankings to get a forced bye.
Lets say you have a class prize, with only two people in the class. Lets’ say its for the class A prize. If one class A player has 1.5 after 3 rounds and the other only has 0.0 after 3 rounds. If the class A player with 1.5 withdraw in the final round would have 1.5 points. The next class A player if could win the last round would have 1.0 points. Directors and players have been in tournaments, when they know that a person will win the prize before the final pairings are post of the last round. Do not see why the class A player should win the prize, walk out the door with the prize before the start of the last round. Then give someone a forced bye in the last round, that could effect the prize award for the lower class award.
I think you were obviously justified in doing what you did, although in this case it wouldn’t have harmed any other player (just the organizer!) to have paid 2nd place, so you might have considered it from a good-will standpoint.
HOWEVER …
When I ran plus-score tournaments at the Chicago Chess Club, I had a “no prizes for drop-outs” policy even though, with prizes by score rather than place, only the organizer would be harmed by allowing withdrawn players to claim prizes. By running plus-score tournaments I was attempting to encourage fighting chess, and allowing a 3-0 to drop out to avoid facing a 2300 in round 4 would have compromised that goal.
It does not matter what the total of players, or the final score group after the event. The policy has to be set at the start of the event and not before hand. If any change to rule 32C1, should be done with rule 26A, Notification.
26A. Notification. Any variation from these published standards, including variations discussed in this rule-book, should be posted and/or announced at the tournament prior to their use, preferably before the first round.
32C1. Withdrawals. Unless the director decides otherwise, players who fail to complete the tournament are not entitled to prize.
The tournament had a player that withdrawed, he would have won a prize after the tournament, if and only if he completed the tournament. Since the tournament did not have a notification, with the announcement prior to the start of round one. Making a change in the variations after the start of round one, would be unfair to the other players. Making the variation change on the last round, would be looked on as partiality on the part of the director.
The rules have to be enforced at the start of the tournament, not how it would be fair after the tournament. The variations must have announcements before the first round. The variation to rule 32C1 has to be made before a player asks for that right. If the variation is used after the first round, and used for only one player. If done, it will be done for only one person not the whole entries.
The player does not have a right to a prize, as the variation to rule 32C1 was not stated at the start of the first round.
yeah, both points above are well understood. We could have made a good-will gesture to the withdrawn player, since the money was allocated anyway. However, it may have set a bad precedent.
Doug, I agree somewhat with your last comments. However, there is no “variation” to this rule. The “Unless the director decides otherwise” part is not a variation; it’s a TD discretionary point. The TD has discretion in this case.
To answer my own question, the TD would “decide otherwise” in emergency cases where a player was unavoidably unable to continue, perhaps due to illness, family emegency, etc. Therefore, no advance notice would be required for the TD to excercise his discretion to “decide otherwise”.
It does not matter if the money was allocated, or the event did have the money to give the award. Some tournaments the organizer will lose money, and some times they have more money then they know what to do. The case is about the precedent, as you and myself had players withdraw from a tournament. If they did not withdraw, they would have won a prize even if they lost the last game.
Can recall having a non-rated scholastic tournament in 1986. The person that would have been on the first board, with a 3.0 after 3 rounds withdrawed for the last round. The next person inline only had 2.0 points and nobody else would finnish with a score higher then 2.5 for the final round. There was only three trophies, he would have won a trophy even if he lost the last and final game.
There must have been tournaments like that yourself. Someone could have won a trophy or prize, but there choice was to withdraw. If we change the prize for one tournament, then we must change the prize for our past tournaments.
Discretionary powers are given to a director, but they should be used in a way that would fit a event or the problems that could happen. The next event for myself will be forced into a different room, in fact having the event in the pool room then the community room. Excercise my discretionary powers must be done before the first round, exercise my discretion during the event for the whole entries. I have had players withdrawing from tournaments, even withdrawed from tournaments myself. Players are looking for and asking, what does the director do and feel is right. Players are asking, what is the director going to do that is fair to everyone.
I do feel sorry if a player withdraws from a event, some times its’ about a illness or for personal reasons. Its’ not part of my duties to make a judgement of what withdraw is more just then any other. If a player withdraws with a 3.0 after three rounds just to go home and watch tv, or withdraws to go home because of a snow storm.
I have used a form at my events for all bye requests and all withdrawals. The form has to be signed by the player.
For withdrawing players, the form notes that withdrawing from the event removes the withdrawing player from any and all prize eligibility.
If I permit half-point byes in the last round, the form makes it clear that last round byes must be requested before the start of the 2nd round and cannot be rescinded.
I also permit zero point byes in the last round, those players are still eligible for prizes.
Having a last round zero point bye is a good idea. With being in Michigan, perform the rules of the Michigan Chess Association. There is no granting of byes during the last round. Calling it a last round zero bye or a withdraw, would have to agree that a bye on the last round is a bye.
Would not have a problem, if having a tournament outside the state of Michigan with a zero point bye. Even not having a sponsored Michigan Chess Association event, it has been my policy to use the rules the Michigan Chess Association has. Im not sure what the directors of Michigan would say over a zero point bye for a last round. In my view it would be rejected.
I don’t know that I’ve ever set a particular deadline for zero point byes in the last round. Before pairings are made, I suppose.
About the only time I’ve needed them are for two-day events where some of the players had a long drive home (4-5 hours) and didn’t have time to play the last round. I remember one case where the two players involved were both riding home in the same car and had well over 200 miles to drive.
Two zero point byes seemed fairer to the other players in the event than an ‘arranged’ draw.
That would seem to present somewhat of a loophole, to circumvent a “no prizes for drop-outs” policy. A player who doesn’t want to face a master in the last round could ask for a last-minute zero-point bye.
Yeah, but we’re doing good to get 3 or 4 experts in tournaments out here these days. Most of our masters have either dropped out of chess or moved to another state.
I only run 1 event a year, it’s not a cash prize tournament, and the experts and masters are competing for a different set of medals than the A players or the B players, so I haven’t seen a lot of problems with zero point last round byes.
I don’t think I’ve had one requested the last few years, and the last one before that was the two players who both had locked up medals in their classes regardless of how the last round went, were paired against each other, and had a long drive back to central Nebraska. It didn’t help that the 4th round on Sunday went 2 hours beyond schedule because one game went to 120 moves at a time control of 40/90, 20/30. (I think I’m the last TD in Nebraska running an event without a sudden death final time control.)