What is the language on the ADM’s? It looks like there were some draft language earlier in the thread, but I was wondering what the final wording is.
The new language adds the one sentence proposed earlier in this thread. Here is the text of my ADM:
The change is the insertion of the sentence “No player, however, may receive more from the division of the summed prizes than the largest prize for which he would be eligible if there were no tie.” My original thought was to add the phrase “provided no player receives more from the division of these prizes than the largest prize for which he would be eligible if there were no tie” to the first sentence, but that is already a very long sentence.
The main problem with the previous wording was the use of “eligible” which is still retained. If you want short, I would suggest the following, which is much closer to an operational description:
If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any (group) of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only the prizes that would remain if they were not in the tie. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes.
Discussions like this and the related thread on prize distributions make me wonder if it is possible to design an event for which the prize distribution cannot be computed under USCF rules.
Anyone old enough to remember the long-running column in The Saturday Evening Post entitled “So you think you know baseball” will recognize the challenges in posing hypotheticals to see if the rules can cover them all.
It’s very easy to design one where the solution isn’t unique, which is effectively the same thing. How does the USATE ever figure out all the novelty prizes? If it’s one per customer, you would have to set some pre-defined ordering of those.
I don’t understand how this proposed rule would work. What does it mean for a group of winners to win the prizes that would remain if they were not in the tie? For example:
1st $100
2nd $40
3rd $20
Top U1800 $90
Alfred 1900 5.0
Betty 1850 4.0
Charlie 1750 4.0
Derek 1700 4.0
Alfred wins $100. The rule says that Betty, Charlie and Derek divide and split the three remaining prizes, winning $50 each, “unless any (group) of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only the prizes that would remain if they were not in the tie”.
If Betty weren’t in the tie, Charlie and Derek would split 2nd plus Top U1800, each winning $65, which is more than the $50 that Betty would win from an equal division of the prizes. So what does this tell us? Does Betty win $65? Or does “the prizes that would remain” refer to the 3rd prize of $20, which is less than $50 so Betty wins $50?
I prefer Ken’s wording.
If Charlie and Derek aren’t in the tie, then Betty gets the $40 and Charlie and Derek get $55 each, so Charlie and Derek benefit from being held out. If Betty’s not in the tie, then Charlie and Derek might benefit, but Betty doesn’t. (Of course, in practice, you would never look at Betty since she’s only eligible for the place prizes). The question is, do you benefit from being put at the end of the line rather than lumped in with everyone else.
The problem with the original wording of the rule is (which has basically been maintained) is that is less a rule than a description of an algorithm that wasn’t really designed for the situation where the “under” group actually needs to pick up a place prize. The procedure which always works is to hold the group of interest out, let everyone else do their best, then see if the group held out does better than everyone else.
Your new wording does seem to cover it, if interpreted correctly. I’m just trying to figure out if there’s room for misinterpretation.
I was trying to keep the wording short, but it may be a bit too short. There’s also the possibility that you could have several groups within a single tie that benefit from being held out, and neither old nor new rules explicitly talk about that (I think that’s implicit).
Maybe this is clearer:
If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any (group) of the winners would receive more money by being held out of the tie group and winning or dividing only the prizes that would remain after distributing prizes to the other winners. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes
I think that’s an improvement, but I’d suggest a slight rewording:
If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners, or group of the winners, would receive more money by being held out of the tie group and winning or dividing only the prizes that would remain after distributing prizes to the other winners. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes.
Yes. I think that’s clearer. When I was parsing that out, I was wondering whether it was necessary to clarify that “receiving more money” actually meant per person (rather than in aggregate).
Here’s the possible ambiguity in Ken’s proposed rule:
Going back to my new example:
1st $100
2nd $40
3rd $20
Top U1800 $90
Alfred 1900 5.0
Betty 1850 4.0
Charlie 1750 4.0
Derek 1700 4.0
Alfred wins $100. Betty, Charlie and Derek each win $50 “unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible”. What prize or prizes are Charlie and Derek eligible for which Betty is not? Is it just the $90 U1800 prize, or is it that prize plus the $20 3rd place prize, the argument being that Betty is eligible for 2nd or 3rd but not both?
If it’s $90 plus $20 Charlie and Derek each win $55 and Betty wins $40.
If it’s just the $90 U1800 prize, as some here have argued, then Charlie and Derek can either win the $50 shared prize or they can split the $90 prize two ways, winning $45 each, with Betty winning $40 (maximum prize under the new rule) and $20 going to the next score group. Since $50 is greater than $45, the three players each win $50, except that Betty can’t win more than $40. What happens to the remaining $10? Under rule 32C6 in the rulebook changes document the $10 should be awarded “within the point group in which the limit was awarded”, $5 each to Charlie and Derek, arriving at the same result: $55 each to Charlie and Derek and $40 to Betty.
The two rules seem to be equivalent but Tom’s revised rule actually seems clearer and less likely to result in confusion.
I don’t think it matters. Per person Charlie and Derek would receive $55 each, which is more than $50. In aggregate they would receive $110, which is more than $100.