The “no-show” problem discussed in the other thread has an unpleasant cousin: the late-announced bye (due to an odd number of players).
Imagine two tournaments that differ in only way:
** The AA tourney announces before the start of round #4 which player will get the the stuck odd-man bye in round #5.
** The BB tourney makes its similar announcement about round #5 only 16 minutes before round #5.
All else being equal, which tournament is better, AA or BB?
Of course, “all else” probably is not equal.
Perhaps the difference is that tourney BB is using the Swiss pairing system, which lacks agility due to its inflexible pairing entanglements between successive rounds. The Swiss system has the advantage of producing unfair pairings, but at least it prevents the early & timely & player-friendly announcement of odd-man bye assignments.
So for half of all Swiss rounds, some paying customer of the BB chess tournament is told at the last minutes that he drove all the way from home for nothing. Or that he stayed and killed two hours between rounds for nothing.
Tourney AA could use Greg Shahade’s Random pairing system, and thus could sometimes announce odd-man byes much earlier.
You can’t determine the bye that far in advance because you don’t know if you’ll have an odd number of players. Players can drop out (or request a bye/skip) for any number of perfectly legitimate reasons. If you announce the bye far in advance, the player will leave, someone will drop out, and someone else won’t get a game. Byes are simply an “edge effect” problem which must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
BTW, it’s not obvious to me why using Shahade’s random-swiss would help, unless it includes a “random-bye-regardless-of-score” provision. I think it’s a very bad idea for other reasons, but we went through all that over than a year ago and there’s no point in rehashing it.
This is why I feel the TD should have always been a rated player. That way at least the “Bye person” in the last round could get in a rated game, even if it is against the TD. This can of course result in a pairing where the rating differential is huge, but then again the TD may not pay a lot of attention to the game. As a TD/Player/Houseman I have lost to players rated about 1000 points below me. So although it is not really an optimal solution, it does provide an alternative solution to sticking a player with a bye in the final round.
The Rulebook doesn’t say that by paying your entry fee you are automatically guaranteed a game, every round. The compensation you receive when there is an odd number of players (which happens about half the time), and you are the lowest-scoring player with the lowest rating, is a point in the tournament, because you were deprived of otherwise winning that round. When there are multiple sections in the tournament, a bye player from one section can often be paired against the bye player in a different section, thereby resolving two players’ byes. But that is not a guarantee, because sometimes there might be an odd number of sections with an odd number of players, or both players might not want to play. Sometimes a houseman might be available to fill in for that round, but that is not a guarantee either. Good insurance against receiving a bye is usually not having a low score (but even that might not be a guarantee, if there is a small section with a lot of rounds).
Nature is not always even and symmetrical, and sometimes a bye is an unavoidable part of one’s tournament.
The Rulebook doesn’t say that by paying your entry fee you are automatically guaranteed a game, every round.
No the guarantee is between the organizer and the player. If the entry fee is $x for N games. Then the player is entitled to N games. There are state laws to cover this. The facts you do not deliver what you promise is theft.
You are not promised x games, and the state laws do not guarantee you x games, nor do the state laws prescribe criminal and/or civil penalties and sanctions for receiving a bye instead of game. You do have the right to expect that the tournament is carried out according to the USCF Rules, however.
Now, what about if you play in a tournament and you win all five games, and you end up tying with another player who also goes 5-0. The TD gives you the Second Place trophy, because you finished second, “on tiebreaks.” Is it time to call the cops?
I invite you to raise this argument at the next tournament where you get a bye. I think you’ll find yourself quickly escorted out of the building by security. Can’t we have even one thread without wasting space on utterly frivolous stuff like this?
The entry fee is $x for a N-round tournament. If the tournament is cut short (going three rounds instead of five) then you might have an argument. If all N rounds are played (regardless of whether or not everybody actually played N games) then the organizer has delivered on his promise.
P.S. I have sometimes had people play an N+1 game to get a rated game in for a player with a bye, and I’d hate to have somebody try to claim that that extra game (possibly in an extra-game section) is violating state law.
The announcing who is getting the bye early as suggested in tournament AA, doesn’t take into account the person who drops out right before the pairings go up creating another odd number. I saw the very situation in a one game a night weekly tournament. The TD made the pairings earlier and called the player who was going to get the bye and told her that she did not have to come in. 15 minutes before the round, a player called up and said he wasn’t going to make it. Redoing the pairings would have given a player with 2.5 points the bye since all the lower scores I had received a bye already. The TD asked me if I would be willing to skip the last round, and play in Steve’s tournament upstairs. I did so. It worked out for me. I scored 2 points and won class money, and the other tournament had an even number.
I much prefer BB. There have been times when I’ve waited, only to find out I was getting the bye in the last round. Fortunately the director has been able to find me an opponent. Usually a bye from another section. Though in Steve’s Thursday night tournament I’ve been perfectly happy to take my point an catch the early train. There was one night that I ran out the door after seeing I was getting the bye. If I had waited another 5 minutes, I would have had a game. Somebody was paired who should not have been.
Too many times there are drop oust that change the number from odd to even or visa versa. It’s not good to commit someone to a forced bye when there a 50-50 chance the number may end out being even. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If state law could divide an odd number by 2 so that all players get to play a game, then I think everyone would be happier.
It would make more sense to have a house player and never have to worry about an odd number of players.
Multiple house players might be needed if there are multiple sections on different schedules.
A house player might only play in half of the rounds in a tournament (the ones with an otherwise odd number) and thus would be stuck waiting for a lot of the event. I guess an extra TD could be hired so that a house player would thus always be available but, since a number of tournaments are already financially borderline (or losing money), that would likely require an increase of entry fees with no increase of prize funds. If an ADM was ever proposed (and passed) mandating a house player then it would risk reducing the number of tournaments people could play in.
Cross-round pairings are another idea people have used. Two of the various drawbacks of them are: a late starting game either requires a shorter time control (which some players are adamantly against) or risks delaying the remaining rounds; a cross-round pairing to make up for a requested round-one half-point bye may result in requiring a cross-round pairing in every round rather than assigning a bye in just the first round.
