Let's say we're running a constructed GPT that has 18 players. Prizes are paid out after the Swiss rounds, and then the top 8 play for the byes. After 5 rounds of Swiss, players collect their prizes and the ones who don't want to play for the byes drop. After that happens, we're left with 5 players total: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th in the Swiss standings - we'll call them Apple, Banana, Cucumber, Daikon and Eggplant. Everyone else has explicitly dropped or just left.

As I'm trying to sort this out in my head, the playoff seeds would be based on who's left - Apple at #1, on down to Eggplant at #5. Daikon and Eggplant would play first, with the winner going on to face Apple, while Banana and Cucumber play in the same semifinal round. WER obviously has other plans, and cuts to the top 4 players remaining - I wasn't actually running it in this case and don't know if it was pairing the bottom 4 and giving #1 a bye or cutting to the top 4 and leaving #5 out in the cold. Ultimately we ended up seating the top 8 as we normally would, dropping whoever had left afterwards, and playing the rest out - I don't know if it would have worked at all had a #9 or higher seed had gotten bumped up.

Just what the heck is the proper way to handle this?

I would create the Top 8 brackets as if the players were there. Then drop them and give the match to the opponent when you seat for the match. if both players in a match drop then WER can handle a double drop.

making sure you drop them not just give the win to the opponent.

Edited Nick Rutkowski (April 17, 2014 04:51:17 PM)

If I am not mistaken, 9th place can get bumped into top 8 only if there are drops before top 8 is paired. To pair top 8, the 8 top players still in the event are given seeds from 1downto 8 and are then paired based on those seeds. If there are only 5 players left, or if there are drops after top 8 is paired, then you still stick to the single elimination bracket, but in this case seeds 1-3 basically get a bye, as you described

From what I gather, people in the top 8 that intentionally drop before pairings then allow the next highest person (9th, 10th, or more if needed) to move up. This is only people that intentionally drop. It seems to me, reading the MTG Tournament Rules section 2.10, a player that just leaves without dropping is still to be paired and is a no-show.

You can't really assume somebody has left without them telling you so. Many players step out to smoke or grab a snack or something. In those cases just pair as normal and make sure you announce the time to no-show at the start of the GPT (10 minutes I believe), and adhere to it. It is a TE - Tardiness (Game Loss) to not show up on time, upgraded to a Match Loss if they do not show up by 10 minutes into the round. Make sure you account for starting a round early, if that happens. I am new, but I am pretty sure these should be reported as penalties (since they are) so that if the player does this often it can be identified.

The rules do say that “Players that repeatedly and/or intentionally drop from tournaments without informing the scorekeepers of those events may be the subject of DCI penalties up to and including suspension.” It may be good to advise people at the start of the last round -prior- to the Top 8 cut that they need to drop officially (by marking it on the match slip, or talking to the scorekeeper).

In my opinion, as part of giving the best customer service we can, we should attempt to have a Top 8 with 8 players that want to play, and to get this and avoid penalties it never hurts to make an announcement about when people need to drop.

Hope this helps

Originally posted by Jason Stewart:

n my opinion, as part of giving the best customer service we can, we should attempt to have a Top 8 with 8 players that want to play

I am not quite sure about this. I, as a judge, dislike bumping people into the top8, because they are, well, not in the top8. But more important I know that a lot of players that play for byes (and they are the only people we do the top8 for) do not like it either, because it feels unfair to them that they have to fight for byes with players that have not earned the right to fight for them with their tournament performance.

Also, by my experience, after X rounds of GPT players generally want to go home, and allowing the top8-players that do not want byes to go home to have less games and thus less time in the top8 is good customer service to the tired contenders :-)

Edited Leon Strauss (Aug. 6, 2014 04:09:14 AM)

Originally posted by Leon Strauss:

I have to disagree. I quite like running tournaments as Aaron described, with prizes based on Swiss standing and the Top 8 being just for the byes/invite/whatever. That way, everyone who is in the Top 8 is playing for something they want.

While it's probably nice to have a bye in the Top 8 because your opponent didn't want the invite and dropped, it's hardly “fair.” It's based entirely on the standings and, in many cases, the nuances of tiebreakers that most players don't really know how to manipulate and therefore can't really be considered a skill. To my mind, also, it should hardly be an expectation that players in the Top 8 might not have to play their quarterfinals round and just get a win. That's not “fair” to the other Top 8 players who have to fight to get through to the semifinals because their opponents want the byes too while someone else's opponent didn't. “Fair” cuts both ways there.

Of course, that is kind of a separate discussion, given the situation at hand. Allowing the players who don't want the byes to go home IS good customer service, you're right. In the OP situation, I would bump up everyone to fill the missing seeds until no players remain, then pair using typical bracketing. In this case, seeds 1, 2, and 3 will get byes in the Top 8.

To avoid the situation, though, I tend to announce the Top 8, then post the standings and instruct players that if they wish to drop before playing the Top 8 to inform me of such. I also instruct the players close to Top 8 to remain a moment to see if they will have the chance to get in.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

I have to disagree. I quite like running tournaments as Aaron described, with prizes based on Swiss standing and the Top 8 being just for the byes/invite/whatever. That way, everyone who is in the Top 8 is playing for something they want.

I generally agree with Justin here. After reading this thread, my LGS has switched to doing payout based on Swiss standing for constructed GPTs, with the Top 8 playing for the byes. We'll probably do the same for PPTQs, if it's allowed by the forthcoming fact sheet. The big advantage of this system is that you don't have a Top 8 where only one or two people want the byes, and they're eliminated in the first playoff round, leaving you with a bunch of people who don't care about the “top prize” of the tournament - it's a lot more exciting when the playoffs mean something.

The way we do it is that we go through the standings before making the cut, when announcing prizes. We go through each player in standings order until we have eight in the playoffs (or run out of players). Of course, players have the right to say that they want a Top 8 slot and then immediately drop (say, because they're just there to help a friend get byes) - they earned that spot by getting an X-1 record and encouraging folks who don't want byes to drop in favor of those who do is a courtesy, not a requirement.

For limited GPTs, we don't do it, because the draft is part of the “prize” - we'll pay out Top 8 there, so you can rare-draft and drop or play it out for more packs. Same for SCG IQs - they specify a specific and top-heavy prize breakdown, which doesn't work paying out on Swiss standings, so we play out the Top 8 for the prizes and invite there, even though most Top 4's have only one to two people who want the invite.