Grading Prize given to ineligible player

[Rob Thompson]

At last Saturday's Teignmouth rapidplay, possibly the most impressive result was Jeff Leung, graded 141, winning the U-160 grading prize. As an entirely oblivious junior, however, he hadn't quite realised upon entry that the grading list for rapidplay updates in January, changing him from C141 to E164. The organisers clearly didn't check this, and so he still managed to win himself the grading prize with 3.5/6

[Sean Hewitt]

At last Saturday's Teignmouth rapidplay, possibly the most impressive result was Jeff Leung, graded 141, winning the U-160 grading prize. As an entirely oblivious junior, however, he hadn't quite realised upon entry that the grading list for rapidplay updates in January, changing him from C141 to E164. The organisers clearly didn't check this, and so he still managed to win himself the grading prize with 3.5/6

Tournaments often specify which grading list will be used for their event and I have seen rapidplay's which use the August list post January. Perhaps this was the case here? Or maybe it was just a mistake?

[John Ariss]

Jeff entered late(on the day) and was taken at his word.Which undoubtably was genuine as far as he was concerned.
As there was a flood of late entries the organiser was under a lot of pressure, especially as the controller for the juniors didn't bother to turn up and he would not have had the time to verify this.
Jeff is a genuine person and in the circumstances this was obviously an honest mistake and I cannot see there being any repercussions from the organiser when he discovers this.
However he will be getting plenty of 'stick' next time he encounters me

[E Michael White]

The entry form specified latest Rapidplay grade. Its good practice for Arbiters to check grade eligibly during the event, particularly for late entries, as likely prize-winners start to emerge.

[Paul Robson]

I think he should returm the prize. Age or reasons for the error aside it is the players responsibility to give a correct grade .

There is often little thanks for controllers but the nineteen point gap should have sent someone a signal. The effect is on the person who would have otherwise won the prize and no doubt they paid good money to enter ?

[John Ariss]

As for arbiters cheecking it out the grades, it is good practice, but not when a controller doesn't turn up and you are trying to run both the open and the major with one controller !!. With a late start and 20 minutes between rounds it does not exactly leave a lot of time .
It can be a pretty thankless task at the best of times with all the usual problems - unfortunatley all the arbiters I know are only blessed with one pair of hands each.
Anyway panic over. Have checked with the organiser and Jeff did NOT win a grading prize , he won the 'best junior' prize, grade is irrelavant

[Rob Thompson]

Apologies, he was under the impression that his prize was for the grading band, which is where i got my information from

[Ben Purton]

He won a prize. Fairplay to him, organizers fault for not checking.

Enjoy the cash!

Ben

[John Ariss]

Rob,
No problem, understandable mistake, by Jeff as there was a rush to give out prizes before everyone disappeared and there was some confusion as to who was eligible for what (u14) , (u16) etc.
At least his phone didn't go off this time.
Two weeks ago his phone went off about 2-3 minutes after he had agreed a draw, they were analysing at the time

[David Sedgwick]

I too had more or less forgotten about the existence of the January Rapidplay List. I've just looked up my Rapidplay Grade online and it's not what I thought it was.

Next year we'll have a January List for Standardplay as well as Rapidplay. That will bring its own problems, in my not so humble opinion, but at least we'll all be more likely to remember that the List exists.

[John Ariss]

David
I look forward to the joys that will bring to all organisers and controllers:

[E Michael White]

Arbiters/controllers probably check most grades before an event starts and with more frequent grading lists should check the entries on the day as soon as they have a spare moment. In the case of a rapidplay this is likely to be after the second round is in progress. Mr Leungs grade was one of those anomalies where his grade increased by about 20 points and he only played 2 games in the period. In this case no harm was done as he entered the correct section.

But what should be done if during round 2 the arbiter discovers a player is in the wrong section by virtue of giving a wrong grade and he won the first round game ? Should the arbiter default the first and second round games awarding the opponents a full point and move the player to the right section giving him 1/2 point byes in the first two rounds ?

[Alex McFarlane]

That depends why he gave the wrong grade!!

With a genuine error giving him two half point byes is reasonable. If deliberate then wishing him 'Goodbye' may be a more appropriate action.

The games played should still count for grading purposes. I would consider the opponents before deciding how to compensate them. If the first opponent was a very weak player who also lost his second game easily then I may give him a half or zero to ensure that he wasn't always meeting much harder opponents than he should do by virtue of his extra point. It is much easier to justify giving the second player the point.

[Chris J Greatorix]

Legal options could be: breach of contract, Fraud by Misrepresentation etc Certainly the player who was denied the gradng prize could possibly recoup the prize money.

[John Ariss]

Chris
Although the situation at the said congress didn't actually occur, the possibility was certainly there, as Rob Thompson inadvertantly pointed out.
Thankfully in the circumstances, had they occured as was first reported, the organiser of this particular event would have seen it as a genuine error, but also credited the 'real' grading prize winner by re-imbursing him with a grading prize as well . The cost being absorbed by the congress, which would no doubt be approved by his commitee as the reputation of the event is worth far more than the monetary value.
However the said 'culprit'would have been in for merciless comments for the foreseeable future Which I guarantee would far outway the monetary gain