Match Play Events Open Thread


Totally forgot I made another change last week:

Scorekeepers can now activate/deactivate arenas in the tournament. This change was made because I got tired of having to locate the tournament iPad to remove broken machines. Now I can do it from my phone :slight_smile:


great update! Happens quite a bit for sure!


I used the add player feature for the first time last night and what a life saver! New guy rolled in seconds after I generated the first round. I could have deleted and re-generated since nobody had started but instead just added him to a three player group. I did notice it was a little buggy though, I had to refresh the groups page and click the modify button again after adding the player to a couple games (we play one round with 6 games per league meeting) because the button to submit became unresponsive.


During my finals for my monthly, turn order changes from game to game and I like to show that on matchplay in real time. At the same time, I’ve been moving away from paper so doing this from the computer has been relatively easy and useful. I’ve noticed sometimes, though, the order can be rearranged but when I go to confirm it, the button refuses to register. I have to cancel and redo to save the changes to the player order. Once I realized the bug it was easy to mitigate, but I feel pretty awkward having to ask order twice. The bug may be linked to how long the window is open, I’m not positive on that. It feels like if I have the window open too long it’s likely to not save changes. I can give a link to the last playoff where that occurred, but I’m not sure that would show up in it. I was using Chrome on Mac-which version I’m not sure but I can find out if need be.


Last night I was testing some things and realized after closing qualifying for a tournament and generating playoffs for A division, I could not then go back to that same finished tournament and generate another playoffs for the B division people.

Suggestions for how to do this?


Would it be out of scope to add a ‘Flip Frenzy’ style tournament option to match play? Heard it mentioned on head2head’s podcast and it sounds really fun. Would be easiest to do with software controlling the queue, obviously.

Quick summary (from the podcast): tournament runs for a set time (like 3 hours). You play 2 player games (best to have enough games everyone can play at the same time). Winner of the game goes back into the queue for a new opponent, loser stays on that game to wait for a new challenger. At the end of the time period, most total wins is the winner.

Having something like match play handle the queue and assigning matches would be handy, but I’m not sure if it fits into the framework of the other tournament styles.


Because players are interested in playing as many matches as possible, I don’t think adding a step for getting match assignments from Matchplay or elsewhere will go over well. Even if it only takes 30 seconds.

I’ve run this format 3 or 4 times. We have a row or circle of chairs where the queued players sit, along with a “totem” being held by one player to indicate the front of the line (and to keep players from having to shift every time someone joins or leaves the queue). In practice, what ends up happening is 2 or 3 matches will finish nearly simultaneously, and this very manual system allows an orderly and quick assignment of the next opponents.

IMO, it would make sense to have Matchplay be able to track wins and losses for this format, but not the queues. At least the way I’ve been running it.


My basement has games in 2 different sections, so you wouldn’t always be able to easily see open games for queue players to know where to head next - so I thought since matchplay lets players have their own ‘portal’ into the tournament it would be easy for them to just pop open their smart phone, report a win and either get a new assignment or be given a queue position. It could balance a bit too, if multiple games are available to start, it could send you to an opponent you haven’t faced yet :shrug:


You don’t need to see open games. You just need to have an orderly queue of people waiting in the same general area. The person who leaves a game goes to the queue and tells the person at the front of the queue what game they need to report to.

It’s really pretty easy once everyone’s done a round or two, but it’s not like a Herb where people can wander around for 10s of minutes, check their phone a few times, see their queue position move up, anticipate when they’re playing, and get back to the queue. In the last one I ran, the average queue time was <5 minutes, Adding time and electronic structure to deal with queues, at least when it’s not necessary, would take something away from the point of this format. YMMV.


Hah! I hadn’t even thought about it that way. Does sound pretty easy.


That’s disappointing. If this happens again can you drop me a screenshot at – I can’t make this happen… Same goes for you @ChubbyGoomba!


Unfortunately, you have to create the B division tournament as a new tournament from scratch.


@epthegeek I’m with @stevevt that Flip Frenzy of PinballPinballPinball or whatever else people call this format is faster to run without software. When I’ve played it the “queue” was a line of poker chips on a table or magnets on a whiteboard instead of a physical line of people. As Steve mentions, the queue moves so quickly that software would slow things down quite a bit.

That said: If you feel it would improve your tournament experience this would be a good thing to add to the feedback forums:


No worries. I’ll get one Teed up and just have it ready to go then. Thanks!


Don’t remember this being mentioned, but there are issues with peoples phones not having the same player orders as say my big screen view. Any way to fix this with an update?


@chuckwurt this happens when there’s a tie to determine player order. For example: If you are using “current tournament position” to determine player order and the two players in the same group are tied in the tournament.

In those cases the two separate systems I have for display content are ordering the ties differently… sometimes.

I will fix this somehow, but for now you can tell your players which one to use (or use a “player order” setting that will never result in ties.


Thanks! Yeah I just told them all to use the big screen view being displayed as the deciding factor.


Fixed a long-standing bug tonight with lots of help from @tomlogic – if you were playing head-to-head match play or knockout and you were using swiss pairings it could happen that a player was moved down two or more “groups” in the pairings.

For example a player with 0 strikes could be matched against a player with two or more strikes.

@tomlogic contributed improved pairing code as well as a set of automated tests so I can make changes in the future with less risk of breaking stuff.


Hi @haugstrup, wanted to report what I think might be a bug in the Group Strike format.

We did 9 Strikes, and the tournament got down to 5 people. 2 people had 5 strikes, and 3 people had 8 strikes.

It was getting late in the event, so I wanted to ensure the match-ups were set up as follows:

  • 2 people with 5 strikes play each other
  • 3 people with 8 strikes play each other

That way, two people would be eliminated this round, and then the final three would play just one more game and we would declare the event complete.

The match-ups that it manually determined ended up as follows:

  • Group 1: 5x, 5x, and 8x
  • Group 2: 8x and 8x

So I figured I would switch it up to move around the 5x’s into the two-person group and we would be good.

When I tried to save the match-up, I got a “Groups must have three or four players error.” We ended up not using MatchPlay and manually kept track of the last two rounds. After the event was over, I cleared the round, added “Dummy Player” to the event with 8 strikes, and then manually adjusted the rounds that I wanted to close out the event.

So, I wanted to report the bug, but also wanted to report that there’s a “Dummy Player” who had a match-up against two people that didn’t actually happen in order for me to report the results into MatchPlay rankings.

We also took advantage of manually adding strikes to players, which is a great feature. That being said, I don’t think the final standings reflect what was the order of elimination from the event. I don’t know if that’s because we added a wave of people after a few rounds, because we added strikes to people, or some other reason.

In the end, it wasn’t a big deal for this specific event because it was a B-Division side tournament that doesn’t have IFPA implications, but wanted to flag it because I think it’s an awesome format that we’d like to use again in the future.

Event Link:


We ran this format on Paper and Google Sheets last week, and one of my action items coming out of it was to raise a request in support of this format.

Google Sheets has been great, but it’s a manual process to translate the results as written on the scoresheets into Google Sheets to determine the winner in a timely fashion at the conclusion of the event. We’ve had a few instances of poor handwriting resulting in conflicting results, it would be nice to be able to keep results digitally regarding the assignments and the results

We’ve been using magnetic letters on a whiteboard to represent a virtual queue. I think the queuing functionality would be extremely helpful to auto-assign people so I’m in support of adding it digitally, but am more interested in the score tracking portion than I am in a complete package if I were forced to choose between one or the other. Worse comes to worse, we can find an outside solution for queuing that’s independent of MatchPlay.

I think this is an awesome format, especially if you only have a few hours. We got, on average, about 15 games in per person in just two hours. We want to continue doing it, but I am looking for an improved solution over what I have now.