So that players perceive a fair payout. If attendance in one section meets expectations, then full prizes are paid. If other sections have smaller turn-outs, then those sections have smaller pay-outs.
A point some seem to be missing is that this rule has always been about advertising. The USCF does not have (and has never claimed) the power to regulate third-party commerce. What those rules say is that if you want to advertise in Chess Life or use a USCF mailing list, you must accept certain restrictions. This has worked because, in practice, not having an event listed in Tournament Life means you won’t get many players.
There are two ways to use the “quote” feature.
One is to just click on “post reply” at the bottom of the page. Then on the rough-draft page which pops up, click on the “quote” button, then paste in the text you are quoting, then click on “quote” again. The result, on the rough-draft page, is that ‘quote’ and ‘/quote’ will appear at the start and end of the quoted portion, each surrounded by square brackets. When you submit, the quoted material will appear nicely with the word “quote” in bold above it.
The other way is to click on “quote” at the top of the specific post you are responding to. In this case, the entire message will appear (you can delete most of it if you want to) surrounded by ‘quote=“John Doe”’ and ‘/quote’ before and after, on the rough-draft page. When you submit, this translates into “John Doe wrote” in bold, followed by the quoted passage.
Bill Smythe
Well, yes, but the most recent motion seems to be concerned only about the wording of the TLA itself. Earlier sections of the rule concerned themselves more directly with the way the prizes can be structured.
Bill Smythe
Well, at least one powerful person (the Rules Committee chair) disagrees with us, so I guess I’ll have to concede that point.
But, Terry, don’t you think that, any time both of us are wrong at the same time, this fact alone speaks to the need for a clarification? 
Bill Smythe
Absolutely on the clarification!! But I still don’t think we were wrong
I understand now. It was my ignorance. 
Well, I usually would do the based on for the entire tournament so that there is greater flexibilty in awarding prizes. If there is a poor turnout in an open section it is easy to move some of the prize money from a lower section with a good turnout so that the higher rated players might still be happy and return to future tournaments. If you want the most flexibility then rather than based on prizes I think at least xx% of EF’s returned as prizes for each section is a good method.
Of course, for larger tournaments with high EF’s, folks like to see all the details so they know what to expect.
You need to be careful here. If the based-on is for the entire tournament, then EACH prize (in all sections) must be at least in proportion to the projection, AND must be at least 50% of the projection, whichever is greater.
Moving a prize from X to Y will probably result in X dropping below one or both of these requirements. To avoid this pitfall, you’d have to award a higher percentage (overall) than you would otherwise be required to do.
Bill Smythe
I have polled the rule’s committee on this question, and the responses so far agree with my interpretation as far as the “spirit” of the rule is concerned (if not the wording).
A clarification is definately in order, or an addition to 32D as suggested by Tim Just earlier in this thread.
There are many ways "around"any rules to allow just about anything you want to do and to avoid the spirit of fairness in place throughout the rulebook. It is impossible to cover every contingency of “what if” that someone may want to try to apply.
One thing to remember, we, as organizers, serve the members and the chess playing population. If we ignore this basic concept and attempt to serve ourselves instead, we are doomed to failure.
Consistency in events and fairness in distribution of prizes is a key aspect of that service. We sould not be out there trying to save every penny we can by interpreting rules or guidelines and getting by with minimalism. this will only serve to alienate the members and leave us holding every bag.
There should be very little opportunity to pay the minimum prizes in a “based on” situation. The torunament MUST be budgeted in such a way, as to at least break even with the payout of 100% of the announced prizes with the EXPECTED turnout, not the “hoped for” one.
To quote the Rulebook:
“Organizers are expected to base their prize fund on estimates of player attendance that can be reasonably acheived.”
That means for the FULL payout of announced prizes.
Based on prizes are a “safety net” to prevent a disaster. After all, blizzards happen, but keep in mind that the safety net should only be used in case that “blizzard” does happen.
Maybe I don’t quite understand this. Let’s say I advertise only $500 b/50 for the tournament, have two sections Open & U1600, have no details on how the prizes are are split up, and get only 8 in the Open section and 20 in the U1600. Are you saying that total in prizes in the U1600 must still be 20/50 of $500?? What I would have thought is to just make sure I give out the max of 50% or 28/50 of $500 in prizes ($280 total) Perhaps: Open $80/$40 (+40) & U1600 $70/$40/$30/$20 (-40)
So what happens when an organizer lists prizes based on 60 entries when similar tournaments by that organizer have drawn around 20?
Alex Relyea
again to continue the quote above from the rulebook: (following 32C4)
“Organizers are expected to base their prize fund on estimates of player attendance that can be reasonably acheived.”
That means for the FULL payout of announced prizes.
The very next sentence reads:
“An organizer who repeatedly overestimates tournament attendance may be subject to penalties, at the discretion of the USCF.”
There was quite a bit of discussion regarding this statement in Florida. Though we did not ennumerate the penalties that might be imposed, the general feeling among the workshop members and at the delegates meeting was that those penalties could be quite severe (such as suspension of affiliation, Tournament Life advertising, and so on.) Blatant violators should be penalized.
Have such penalties been enforced?
Not to my knowledge.
Should they be enforced?
YES!
The short answer is no. Since you did not treat the sections “separately,” your obligation is to pay 28/50 x $500. If you had advertised it as “$250 b/25 Open, $250 b/25 U1600,” you would have been on the hook for 50% in the Open and 80% in the U1600.
The practical answer (well, question) is, why would anyone play in a tournament that did not give any details on the prize distribution? Under the terms you describe, you could in theory decide to give $1 to first place and $279 to top Class D.
Yep, for sure folks would have to trust that the TD is fair in distributing the prizes and methinks this is easily gotten via reputation - especially for smaller local tournaments. In my original post I mentioned that for larger (higher entry fee tournaments) that folks would want to see the details for sure!
I wonder if any TD ever did such an outrageous flip on the prizes.
I have always been stunned on how many players have no idea what any of the details of the tournament were. I ran Quads for several years with a $30 prize clearly announced and still got questions all the time like How many rounds?, Are there any prizes?, Are there any prizes for 2nd place? – these were not from newbies either!
btw… For a tournament with $25 or less EF I would trust just about any USCF TD to deliver a reasonable distribution of prizes if all I knew was prizes based on or % of EF unless I knew of a specific reason not to trust them. Maybe I should not trust some of the TD’s who don’t send in the rating reports for months after a tournament!
Holy Nellie. I had no idea you were talking about announcing NO details. I guess, in this case, you could get away with almost anything.
I was thinking of a TLA more along the following lines:
$$500 b/50, broken up as follows:
Open: 1st $150, 2nd $100.
U1600: 1st $150, 2nd $100.
Now suppose you get only 5 players in the Open, but you still get 25 in the U1600.
You would then be on the hook for 60% (30/50) of the prizes – in fact, 60% of EACH prize, as follows:
Open: 1st $90, 2nd $60.
U1600: 1st $90, 2nd $60.
You said that, in this case, you would consider re-distributing some of the Open prizes back to the U1600, since the U1600 had a good turnout. Perhaps you had in mind something like this:
Open: 1st $60, 2nd $40.
U1600: 1st $120, 2nd $80.
This still adds up to the $300 minimum, but it does NOT satisfy the rules, because two of the prizes (those in the Open) are below the 60% you are on the hook for.
Bill Smythe
Let me start by saying that 32D was stated in the 4th edition as well, so it’s not a new rule. Also, we seem to be confusing and going off the track with two different rules (32C4 and 32D). My interest is in 32D.
I simply cannot conclude any other intent for the rule in 32D than that which allows an organizer an EXCEPTION to the rule as stated in 32C4 regarding the 50% payout obligation. If prizes are advertised as: $400 b/20 in one section and $400 b/20 in another section, the intent of this rule seems to have been to allow an exception. We can debate whether or not this is a good rule, and whether or not it should be amended, but as to the current language, I see no other interpretation as to its spirit. Because I was not in attendance at any of the Delegate’s Meetings which brought about this rule, I obviously cannot know what caused the motion to approve this rule. If there was a different idea, I certainly would be interested in a better explanation.
e4e5 offered the following amendment:
If this is what we want to do, then we need only to amend the language of the current 32D. Adding to 32D with the above rule (32D1), would not clarify anything. It would, rather, exascerbate the confusion. It could be confused as either being redundant to 32D or it could be confused as being a “Variation” to 32D.
Additionally, if this is what we want to do, I would suggest that we replace the word “and” with the word “but” following “…when the prize fund for each section is $500 or less…”, and insert the word “still” after “…the organizer must…”. It would read as follows:
Now, to 32C4, which was apparently debated in Florida before the publication of the 5th edition.
Since I didn’t personally attend the workshop and Delagate’s Meeting in Florida, I obviously wouldn’t know what the spirit of the meaning of the addition to rule (32C4) was:
I can interpret it only by the actual language, which seems to want to prevent organizers from inflating an expected attendance. I cannot, for the life of me, interpret the above quoted amendment as having been designed to have any relevance to the 50% payout. This seems an independant addition.
I don’t think anyone here is trying to get around the rules in an effort to serve themselves as organizers or TDs. Indeed, my attempt is to always serve my customers (the players) first.
There are many ways "around"any rules to allow just about anything you want to do and to avoid the spirit of fairness in place throughout the rulebook. It is impossible to cover every contingency of “what if” that someone may want to try to apply.
One thing to remember, we, as organizers, serve the members and the chess playing population. If we ignore this basic concept and attempt to serve ourselves instead, we are doomed to failure.
I agree whole-heartedly with the above.
David, please don’t take offfense to the plausible rude tone of my post here. We all appreciate the guidance of you and Tim in this forum, and I appreciate the opportunity you allow us to be involved with the rules process.
Terry Winchester
I don’t disagree with your suggestion, but I’m still puzzled that you would read the rule that way. It seemed obvious to me that 32D is an additional restriction, not an exception. If you set up your tournament with separate based-on numbers for each section, you must pay 50% of the total and pay proportionately in each section.
Isn’t “… the prize fund for each section is $500 or less but” redundant here?
The intent of 32C4 is to allow differing payout rates in different sections of a tournament. It is relevant for all tournaments with multiple based-on prizes. Take for example:
Open: $200 b/20, 5 attend
Reserve $200 b/20, 15 attend
This tournament doesn’t have a 50% minimum requirement because the total prizes are $400. With 32C4, the payout rates can be different, 25% for the Open and 75% for the Reserve. Without 32C4 the payout rates would have to be the same, probably 50% for both sections. (Though it could be argued that it should be the better rate of 75% attained in the Reserve). I think that allowing the variable payout rates in the same tournament is the only reason that 32C4 exists.
- Tom Martinak
I was a bit sleepy when I wrote that, and still am, but I don’t think it’s redundant.
The intent is that each section may be under $500, but combined, they may total more than 500, as in:
Open $400 b/20
Reserve $400 b/20
Maybe I’m just erroneously nitpicking grammar. And, I may be wrong, too
-Terry