I’ve written the tournament announcements for my club (http://www.pdxchess.org, click on the event titles to see the announcements). Anything I should add or clarify?
How big of a turnout would compel you to change a 4-round G/60 to a five-round G/45? I kinda scratch my head at that. Otherwise it looks good from here. Maybe add a link to your long list of places where info on rules and regs can be found.
On that page, you list Quad 45 and Game in 60. Did you forget to specify the delay?
Those are the event titles. Is it required to have the delay specified even in an event title now?
No. You’re fine.
Alex Relyea
I agree with Mr. Mark. I think that when most players come to an event, they want to know what they are going to get. Some people who might grit their teeth and come to play as fast as G/60 wouldn’t “risk their rating” at G/45.
Alex Relyea
I don’t run our club’s monthly “Game in 60” and didn’t put that format together. It rarely gets changed to G/45;d5 the only one from the past several years that I can remember that did was this one which got 39 players: uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201403291002. In case of a “very large turnout”, I’ll see if our local players would prefer to keep the 4 round, G/60;d5 format do accelerated pairings for the first two rounds. At what number of players should we start doing accelerated pairings?
Wasn’t this already asked (by you) and answered?
Yes it has been answered - and of course it is clearly stated in the rule book.
However, the rulebook doesn’t mention the fact that the multiple perfect scores really isn’t a problem with a “money” tournament (nor that in a money tournament, there tend to be more draws than in a trophy tournament). However, having the same person ask the same question about the exact same tournament several months apart seems to indicate that said person may not actually read responses to his questions very carefully.
I consider it a problem. In my opinion, if someone defeated all comers, they are entitled to the full 1st place guaranteed amount.
When this problem came up in our club (5TH ANNUAL ACC CHAMP - Event ID: 201501044532), I estimated the likelihood of multiple perfect scores in the Open section without using accelerated pairings using statistical formulas based on the results by round from similar past events to be 10% for the entries we had. Peter Kappler wrote a simulator based on the draw rate data here: http://chess-db.com/public/research/draw_rate.html. It confirmed the 10% chance of getting multiple perfect scores if we had 75 players in the Open section (5 rounds) with the rating distribution we had. If the number of entries was down to 66, the chance of multiple perfect scores went down to 5%.
That was more of a chance that we were willing to take, so we went with the accelerated pairings (quarters) for the first two rounds.
Michael Langer
Austin, TX
I think you’re in the minority in considering it a problem in money tournaments. I remember years ago, long before we had rules on the subject, twice I shared first place with perfect scores. As a class player that was certainly not something I expected to do, but sometimes you catch a break here and there. While I didn’t get the full first place amount, I was OK with that. As I looked at it, the higher turnout that led to the tie was a factor in my receiving easier pairings than I would have in a smaller event.
In any event, the rules now are very explicit. No one has a valid complaint - unless the organizer and TD don’t follow the rules, of course.
I tend to agree with FM Langer in not liking, as an organizer, multiple perfect scores. I think it is bad when, say, a GM wins the open section, but gets less money than a class player did for winning his section. It would be worse if the GM has a perfect score.
Alex Relyea
While the rulebook does not come right out and tell us to avoid, at all costs, more than one perfect score, it surely does indicate that one perfect score is ideal, and I agree.
I certainly don’t like to have to share prize money (on a perfect score), and I would suspect that others don’t either.
It seems quite rare, in my area, that TDs do Class pairings in the final round, although the rulebook provides for it, and although many cases of Class money don’t involve perfect scores, but rather tied scores, I have, on a couple occasions, paired a class by itself in the last round in order to avoid such ties. I wish more TDs would do that, and set the precedent for it.
That’s more a function of poorly designed prize funds.
How so?
In a tournament large enough for a GM to have a perfect score and not win first place clear, the prize for an under section should not be so large that the under winner gets more than the co-winners of the open section. Either the prizes, the section limits or both would have to be seriously out of whack for that to occur.
Or there are not a lot of prizes and re-entries are possible. 
Example
Three merging schedules. Open: 1300, 1000, 500. U2200:950
A, B and C are in the Open section
A beats B and C in schedule 1 and A reaches the merge with a perfect score.
B and C re-enter into schedule 2 with B beating C and B reaches the merge with a perfect score.
C re-enters into schedule 3 and reaches the merge with a perfect score.
A, B and C have already played each other and cannot be paired again, with all finishing with a perfect score and splitting $2800 three ways for $933.33 each.
U2200 is won with a sole winner (not necessarily a perfect score) taking $950.
I still remember the undivided $25 first prize I won in a class tournament by going 5-0 in the Open section in 1984. In the Class B and Class C sections, first prize was $150, because there were more players in those sections. I had to beat a master, senior master, two experts and a class A player, a result which pushed me over the 2200 barrier for the first time. The organizer used based on numbers for each section of the tournament to determine prizes rather than a based on number for the whole of the entrants. He despised higher rated players. BTW, the top Expert prize and the top Class A prize in that section of the event were also $25. It cost $25 to enter. That tournament was the beginning of the end for higher level tournament chess in our area for over two decades. Many of the masters and some of the Experts moved on or retired from tournament play as this became the norm for tournaments. Yeah, I am not bitter about how lousy that tournament was set up. 
I thought it was permissible to pair two players again after the merge if both of them re-entered. If so, in this case it would seem that at least B could play C again.
Bill Smythe