CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christopher Mallon
    replied
    Re: Failure to Play Last Round - Is Restriction a Good One?

    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Hi Peter:

    If the TD had advertised the rule before the tournament, then he would have been right in his ruling, correct?

    Do you think the TD's restriction is a good one? Should it be the standard for most tournaments? If not why not?

    Bob , CCC Coordinator
    The TD did advertise the rule - no byes after the 3rd round. Sure it was worded differently, but that's what it worked out to be. Byes of any type in the last round mess up pairings a lot more than byes in the early rounds.

    My main concern is that the TD should have been up front with the player that this is what was going to happen. I'm guessing they were not since we're talking about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Re: Failure to Play Last Round - Is Restriction a Good One?

    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    ... If TD wants his last-round rule to be in effect then he needs to advertise it in advance of the tournament. ....
    Hi Peter:

    If the TD had advertised the rule before the tournament, then he would have been right in his ruling, correct?

    Do you think the TD's restriction is a good one? Should it be the standard for most tournaments? If not why not?

    Bob , CCC Coordinator

    Leave a comment:


  • Jean Hébert
    replied
    Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

    Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    TD's ruling was incorrect and B should have been allowed to split first prize with A.
    I agree. That 4/4 would be considered worthless compared to 4/5 is simply ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter McKillop
    replied
    Re: CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    ... The TD advised that it was his rule that to win a prize, one had to play the final round, and so Player B did not get to split first with Player A. There had been nothing in the advertising about having to play the final round. Did the TD make a correct ruling or not? ...
    TD's ruling was incorrect and B should have been allowed to split first prize with A. If TD wants his last-round rule to be in effect then he needs to advertise it in advance of the tournament. Seems to be just common sense, doesn't it? Am I missing something obvious?

    Leave a comment:


  • CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

    Posted on the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) FB chess discussion group, " CCC - Chess Posts of Interest " ( slightly edited ):

    CCC Discusses Chess - Posts of Interest - Failure to Play Last Round.

    International/National.

    Player A in a 5 round weekend swiss, plays all 5 games, and finishes in first with 4pts.. Player B plays for 4 rounds, wins every game, but had a work commitment, and before the tournament had asked the TD for a 5th round zero pt. bye. The tournament rule had been that only 2 byes were allowed within the first three rounds ( like the recent Canadian Niagara Falls Open ). The TD treated the request for the bye as a " withdrawal ", and noted " U " ( = withdrawal ) on the chart for the 5th round. Player B's final score was 4 pts., the same as Player A. The TD advised that it was his rule that to win a prize, one had to play the final round, and so Player B did not get to split first with Player A. There had been nothing in the advertising about having to play the final round. Did the TD make a correct ruling or not? What do you think and why? If the tournament had been FIDE-rated, do FIDE rules deal with this? Do any countries have national rules on this ( eg. Canada's CFC Handbook )?

    Bob, CCC Member
Working...
X