I am looking at a couple of fliers for two different tournaments.
They have something odd. They both say (same organizer), Prize Fund 50% guarantee but the Based On (from what I can tell) has been removed from the previous versions of both fliers. (I have both).
So in a sense the thresholds have been removed? How does the organizer decided the PF?
I guess this is legal but very odd. I am not sure if that would be appealing to many players.
No this is not a discussion about the 50% guarantee rule in the Rulebook. But instead is about fliers and tournament PF fund set up.
Update: The TLA includes a “b/xx”. So presumably it is an oversight but one that some players will question
I disagree. As a member of the Rules Committee, the TDCC (chair), and the current rulebook editor I can’t find any source for your comment here. Please cite your source. “Oversights” are easily avoided with TLAs using the current practice of having TLAs proof read by the organizer before they get published.
If we let flyers trump TLAs because of an “oversight” the door would then be open for all kinds of abuse (go ahead and make up your own little scenario for that one).
Several complaints have been filed with USCF in recent years regarding the TLA Vs Flyer trump card as a central issue of the organizer’s defense for not paying out the promised $$$ (etc.). The committees have favored the TLA.
Is this “update” because you overlooked the “b/xx” when you made your original post, or because the TLA has been revised?
Either way, “b/xx” means they must pay out the full prize fund if xx players show up, proportional (for each prize) if fewer show up, but at least 50% of each prize.
I suppose, however, that if the TLA is so vague and sloppy that it appears to let the organizer off the hook entirely, he could still be bound (also) by the flyer.
Does that not open the door for organizers to all turn in vague and sloppy TLAs so they can change things on a flyer at a later date and mislead (aka: cheat) the players?
The “based on unspecified/variable entry number” would seem to be a good way of automatically cutting the advertised prize fund in half, without having to bother counting how many players actually show up.
Breaching the terms of the TLA would theoretically be a faster way to getting your affiliation suspended, although in practice USCF seems to have suspended its enforcement role as well.
So if the flyer states “all prizes 100% guaranteed”, and the TLA states “based on 500”, which would rule?
But, since you are a member of the Rules Committee, the TDCC (chair), and the current rulebook editor, I will defer to your opinion.
I think the TLA was created before the last flier revision. But I actually do not know since I wasn’t there.
I hadn’t look at the TLA when I first wrote the post but afterwards.
The organizer has changed the flier with based on qualification. Apparently word got out. Not necessarily from here, since I sent email to another party.
When I see the details of a complaint giving away MORE than what is listed as a minimum guarantee in the TLA I will let you know (so far I have only seen complaints about organizer not meeting the upper level of guarantees in the TLA–which I believe was the point of this discussion). I suspect the complaint about exceeding the guarantees will be like the ones I have seen regarding 4 whites in a row; i.e., non-existent.
IMHO: Every rule can be shown to be silly in order to make an obscure rare point. Thanks for doing that in this case. Do you have any other examples?
I wasn’t attempting to show a “siilly” example. All I was attempting to do was show that a flyer can and often times does have more details than what is listed in the back of Chess Life. You blanket statement that the TLA always trumps the flyer appears to be wrong on the surface, with or without a silly example. I seriously doubt a small claims court judge would give more wait to a 1x1 classified ad in a magazine than a 8x12 flyer that was mailed directly to a player.
