CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Bye in Last Round.

[Bob Armstrong]

Posted by Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) member, Erwin Casareno, on the CMA ChessTalk, based on posts/comments on the FB chess discussion group: " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest ":

CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest = Bye in Last Round

Should a bye be allowed in the last round of a chess tournament, provided the bye is requested in advance = before the last round?

The player has an appointment he could not cancel.

Your opinion is needed. Thanks.

Join us in our discussion board in Facebook

Erwin Casareno, CCC member

[Garland Best]

Zero point byes, yes. Half points no.

It is that one person's decision to not play, regardless of circumstances. If you award that player a half point and it results in that person winning a prize, then you have eliminated any chance of the other players in the tournament from preventing that from occurring.

[Paul Leblanc]

This came up during the Grand Pacific Open. A player requested a last round bye and/or withdrew, I can't remember the exact request. That person, even with a zero point bye in the last round, still won a prize. To my surprise I discovered that there is a CFC rule that anyone who does not complete the last round forfeits any prize. Furthermore, the CFC rule goes on to say that a "valid reason" for withdrawing over-rides the rule. The valid reason, in our case was "I need to report to work".
The rule seems odd to me and unenforceable since there is no way of validating a "valid reason".

[Kerry Liles]

This came up during the Grand Pacific Open. A player requested a last round bye and/or withdrew, I can't remember the exact request. That person, even with a zero point bye in the last round, still won a prize. To my surprise I discovered that there is a CFC rule that anyone who does not complete the last round forfeits any prize. Furthermore, the CFC rule goes on to say that a "valid reason" for withdrawing over-rides the rule. The valid reason, in our case was "I need to report to work".
The rule seems odd to me and unenforceable since there is no way of validating a "valid reason".

Furthermore, the person qualified for a prize based on his/her performance without points from the last round, so I would think the proper thing to do would be award the prize!

"valid reason" is so subjective as you point out...

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Furthermore, the person qualified for a prize based on his/her performance without points from the last round, so I would think the proper thing to do would be award the prize! .

There could be a situation when prize amounts would be different if a person played a game.

Lets say:
a [withdrawn (without bye)] person 4 points;
two players 3 points.

Two possible pairings:
a. (a withdrawn case) 3 vs 3
b. 3 vs 4 and 3 vs 2.5

a. might be two players with 4 points;
b. might be 3 players with 4 points.

[Jonathan Berry]

Excellent example by Egis. Depending on the players and degree of nemesis, it could be a prize advantage to withdraw, even with a zero-point bye, were that allowed.

I'd say that a "valid reason" would be "called in to work unexpectedly", whereas invalid reasons might include "wanting to catch the hockey game on TV" or "going to a regular work shift that the person knew about before the tournament". If the player had indicated to the TD before the event that "I might be called in to work instead of playing the last round", I'd tend to regard that as valid, and award the zero-point bye.

When such rules were written, people had to work to earn a living, and everybody understood that. Other validating reasons included medical or family emergencies.

The same universal recognition of the vital may not be true today. In a tournament in the past decade, I had a player tell me (as TD) that he couldn't play the last round on medical grounds. His head hurt so bad. Could he have a half-point bye for the last round? My rule is no half-point byes that have not been requested before the tournament. However, in view of the valid reason offered, and the fact that he was not going to win a prize with the half-point, I granted the bye. So the round begins and I find the guy playing Blitz chess in the skittles room. The reality of the excuse was that he didn't feel like playing a tournament game. And he didn't really want to lose the status of that half point in the magazine crosstable.

[Garland Best]

Let's analyze Egis's example further, from the point of view of the 2 other players. Call the player with 4 points Albert, and the players with 3 points Bob and Charlie.

Case A: A win by either Bob or Charlie ensures that player winning half the pot, while a draw means neither wins anything.

Case B: If Albert wins or draws his game then neither Bob or Charlie wins anything. If Albert loses, then Bob might win half the pot. Charlie can only win prize money if both Charlie and Bob win.

At the very least, Charlie prefers it if Albert gets a zero point bye to having Albert play, while for Bob the only issue is does he think he has a better chance of beating Albert or Charlie. Even then, he could beat Albert and still only win 1/3 the prize pool, so logically he would rather have Albert have the zero point bye.

On the other hand, forfeiting Albert from the tournament means he gets nothing, while Bob and Charlie, who could at best tie Albert in points now could capture the entire first prize. If they draw the last round game, then they split first prize between them while Albert, who has more points than either even with a zero point bye gets nothing.

Which scenario seems fairer to you? One where Albert takes a zero point bye, knowing that he might give up sole winning of the prize fund, or one where he gets nothing for his previous 4 wins even if that is the best result in the tournament?

[Jonathan Berry]

Nemesis. Bob and Charlie always draw. Bob always beats Albert. It does not take much! Good example, Egis.

I agree that Albert might be allowed to have a zero-point bye in the final round if he requested it (or the equivalent) irrevocably before the tournament, even if the rules now state otherwise. But the TD and the organizer are the final authorities; the player could have declined to enter, knowing what the ruling would be.

I once asked if I could withdraw before the last round and still win a prize. Receiving the answer in the negative, I played somebody who has contributed to this thread. Is the world small?

[Bob Armstrong]

Posted on Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) Facebook chess discussion board, " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest " ( slightly edited ):

A 5-round swiss tournament advertised, " no byes after Rd. 3; byes to be requested prior to start of Rd. 1 ".

You are the TD, and before the 5 round swiss starts, Player Z asked for a Rd. 5 " bye " of either 1/2 or 0 points, but said under no circumstances would he accept being treated as withdrawing ( = " U " on the crosstable, rather than 1/2 or 0 ). Player Z threatens not to play if you give him a " U ". What would you do?

Are there any different consequences if you treat it one way or the other? In other words, for example, is there any difference if you put " 0 " under Rd. 5 on the crosstable, to indicate a " last round bye " OR if you put " U ", to indicate a " last round withdrawal "?

Bob, CCC Member