[szgyula]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-03, 16:49, said:

Are you sure about that? Take a look at page 44 and read note 17.

The pair was aware that they do not qualify but still played. This was not "accidental".

Just to close the matter, there are two decisions by the same authority:

1. In the actual event the there is nothing in the CoC that can be used to decide. Thus, they used "common sense" and the ruling is "result stays, pair disqualified, winner is B".
2. Parallel to this they realized that the CoC is not clear on this matter so they used "common sense" to update the CoC. The new CoC says "results scrapped". Thus, in the same situation, pair-C would have won.

These two decisions were make by the same people...

Gyula

[Vampyr]

It is not totally unusual for an ineligible pair or team to play without standing in order to even up the number of contestants. In a pairs game you can just pretend that there was a sitout I guess, but suppose it had been eg Swiss pairs with 6+ boards per round? Then you would be pleased if an ineligible pair offered to fill in your movement and of course their results would count although they would not be able to win prizes, trophies, masterpoints etc.

So for consistency it seems to make sense to keep any validly obtained results.

[barmar]

That's why the CoC should state clearly how ineligible contestants should be counted.

A few years ago I got to play a session with Asya Ladyzhensky when we were both kibbitzing the ACBL Senior Pairs, a player had to leave due to illness, and they needed someone to fill in. Neither of us qualifies as a senior (if they hadn't changed the cutoff last year, I would be eligible next year, but she's way at the other end of the spectrum). AFAIK, all our results counted for our opponents, but we didn't get any masterpoints for it.

[szgyula]

 barmar, on 2015-September-10, 19:14, said:

That's why the CoC should state clearly how ineligible contestants should be counted.

A few years ago I got to play a session with Asya Ladyzhensky when we were both kibbitzing the ACBL Senior Pairs, a player had to leave due to illness, and they needed someone to fill in. Neither of us qualifies as a senior (if they hadn't changed the cutoff last year, I would be eligible next year, but she's way at the other end of the spectrum). AFAIK, all our results counted for our opponents, but we didn't get any masterpoints for it.

I fully agree. On the other hand, I can also present an extreme example: A KO tournament of lets say 32 teams, one of them not eligible. Lets say a senior (60+ years), Flyweight (50.8kg max) boxing KO tournament that has Klychko in it (39 years, 112kg). Volodymyr "wins" of course. As you had a single elimination tournament, there could be 5 players that lost only to him. They could all have won the tournament without him, you can not tell. I do not think it would be fair to say one of them is 1st, one of them is 15th.

The point is: if you have a pair that does not qualify, you distort the results and you can not fairly compensate, no matter what you do. If the extra pair/team/whatever is announced and the rules are known, that is a different story.

I think we can close this discussion, as we have a clear conclusion (no clear conclusion, pick one or more subjectively, and UPDATE THE CoC).

Gyula

[pran]

 szgyula, on 2015-September-11, 02:47, said:

I fully agree. On the other hand, I can also present an extreme example: A KO tournament of lets say 32 teams, one of them not eligible. Lets say a senior (60+ years), Flyweight (50.8kg max) boxing KO tournament that has Klychko in it (39 years, 112kg). Volodymyr "wins" of course. As you had a single elimination tournament, there could be 5 players that lost only to him. They could all have won the tournament without him, you can not tell. I do not think it would be fair to say one of them is 1st, one of them is 15th.

The point is: if you have a pair that does not qualify, you distort the results and you can not fairly compensate, no matter what you do. If the extra pair/team/whatever is announced and the rules are known, that is a different story.

I think we can close this discussion, as we have a clear conclusion (no clear conclusion, pick one or more subjectively, and UPDATE THE CoC).

Gyula

KO events are extremely unsuitable as examples for this discussion.

[barmar]

KO events also don't generally require filling in the movement like pair events. While you would ideally like a power of 2 to get perfect bracketing, there are other methods that are well-known to deal with other numbers: byes, 3-way, and 4-way matches.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-September-11, 14:29, said:

KO events also don't generally require filling in the movement like pair events. While you would ideally like a power of 2 to get perfect bracketing, there are other methods that are well-known to deal with other numbers: byes, 3-way, and 4-way matches.

True, but some protocol is needed to handle the case if a contestant is found to be unqualified (for whatever reason) after several rounds in a KO event.

Automatic re-entry in the event of all contestants that has been knocked out by this contestant?

[Zelandakh]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 01:07, said:

Automatic re-entry in the event of all contestants that has been knocked out by this contestant?

A repechage round might be an appropriate measure for such cases.

[pran]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-12, 07:29, said:

A repechage round might be an appropriate measure for such cases.

Sorry?
None of my dictionaries has the word "repechage".

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 08:28, said:

Sorry?
None of my dictionaries has the word "repechage".

It's the sort of thing that is sometimes used in double-elimination events -- the once-defeated teams play off to win a place in a late round of the main tournament.

[RMB1]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 08:28, said:

Sorry?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repechage
None of my dictionaries has the word "repechage".

Not even a French dictionary?

And the internet is quite good at looking up words, for instance https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Repechage

[pran]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 08:28, said:

Sorry?
None of my dictionaries has the word "repechage".

 RMB1, on 2015-September-12, 08:52, said:

Not even a French dictionary?

And the internet is quite good at looking up words, for instance https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Repechage

It didn't cross my mind to look up in my French dictionary for a word in English text, but there I found "repêcher" with the meaning "fish up".
I must admit I would still have been confused had I found that.

The internet reference was indeed good though.

[szgyula]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 15:07, said:

It didn't cross my mind to look up in my French dictionary for a word in English text, but there I found "repêcher" with the meaning "fish up".
I must admit I would still have been confused had I found that.

The internet reference was indeed good though.

I think my KO example was misunderstood. The point I was trying to make: There are situations where "results stand" is obviously a bad option. A KO event is an extreme example of this. Sometimes you have to do something else. As we already have two examples, both extreme, one favors "results stand", one favors something else, we can probably all agree that there are lots of in between cases where answers are not so obvious. Thus, the only acceptable way to handle it is to have clear rules. They may not be "fair" but they are objective...