Tournament extension question.

With a frenzy format using a predetermined cutoff what’s the general rule on extending it? I recently played in a tournament that was extended 2 times, the first I understood was to more closely reach the time cutoff of 5pm, but the second extension added games to start after the 5pm cutoff time. As a player that was adversely affected by the extension I’m trying better understand what to expect if playing in an event like this again.

Definitely shouldn’t happen. The event should’ve been set with a timer in matchplay. That timer can be paused for various reasons, but once the time is up, that should be that.

Multiple extensions sounds bad. Hopefully they had a good explanation. Or hopefully it doesn’t happen again.

I would say it was a Max match play tournament, and while I was also negatively impacted, I should have played better :grinning:.

I suspect it was driven by unfamiliarity with how the format and the match play work together because everyone has to have the same number of games.

Also it looks like 1 person joined late, which was probably the main driver. Dropbox Paper

The first extension was discussed prior to the start as the goal was to play for 4 hrs. The second was the one I was perplexed by as it extended play beyond the 5 cutoff. Some players had finished their alotted games prior to 5, but the extension meant that games would definitely be started after the assigned cutoff. I’m not sure when the 2nd extension even happened.

Total guess by me, but that’s why I think it was a combination of new format, and late arriving player.

Sort of an oh shit we have a player that needs to catch up on games.

I don’t disagree on the “play better” aspect, but as a player there should be some communication about the extension or set guidelines on how it will happen. With matches still actively being played at 5pm, from the 16-20 games, it seems as those that cutoff would have stood.

1 Like

So the flip frenzy timer should have been set to this and it can be clearly seen by all players. Not sure how they went around that. Did they pause the timer multiple times?

Setting a time cutoff can get messy. just set a 4 hour timer and go.

While I don’t disagree with that, I also think that folks need the freedom to learn how this tournament type works. I’m sure in no time it will become as smooth as frenzy tournaments were… a little learning goes a long way.

It was a match play frenzy.

I get the new format thing, how is it usually handled in a regular frenzy?

In a regular frenzy you’d set the time. In max match play you can set the number of max games, but I think duration (number of games) was used because they didn’t know how long the original # of games would take. Tons of assumptions here from me… I’d hit up the TD for details.

Oh. I’ve never played that. Ignore all my comments. Haha

Seems like you didn’t play a true flip frenzy. You played Maxed Match play. Frenzy is truly time based. Max Match play is not.

1 Like

Sounds correct. It was presented to players that it would have a 5pm cut off and game number would be adjusted for that to occur.

adjusted how? and what if some players have 2-3 more then others?

The tournament was adjusted by adding games. All players are required to play the same amount of games.

The player that was behind in games was not the added player, I think they were just involved in longer games that removed them from the game selection cycle at some point.

Link the tournament on Matchplay. Might make more sense if we can see that. I’d also suggest talking some with your TD. It could make it clear what they need to communicate to players.

Players and tournament directors should all work together to make the tournaments fun and of high quality.

Looks like this is the event:

This is a Max Match Play, so it should be game based (22 games it looks like) and not time based.

Everyone needed to play 22 matches, regardless of the amount of time it took to get there. My presumption is that it took more time than expected for everyone to reach 22 games, hence the need for “time extensions” beyond what was originally assumed.

In terms of “fairness”, it appears everyone did indeed play 22 games, so you have a comparison across the group of a Win-Loss where everyone played the same amount of games. It’s “unfair” if the assumption was that this was a Flip Frenzy and time based, but it looks like this was being run as Max Match Play.

When I look at the burndown, it does appear there’s a long-tail of about 30 minutes to close-out the last ten games to get everyone to 22.

Edit: Re-reading through some of the comments it seems that the target game count was being adjusted in the middle of the event? Was there an initial target number of games and then game count was being adjusted on the fly to fit the expected time?

From what little I know about this tournament it looks pretty standard. Advertised that it would fit into a time frame and games played was adjusted to make that work out. Everyone played the same number of games and it all seems fair. The hardest part of those late extensions though for this format comes from extending while players are still a few games back. I’d probably try to finish the original number of games, then extend. Think that would have prevented the rematches that happened.

1 Like

Initial game number was 16. Once 16 was reached it was determined that 20 could be played within the 4 hr window. At some point it was bumped to 22. Not all players had completed their 19th game at 5pm.