Pairing in a qualification

[Matti]

Let's assume a qualification tournament with one round left. Qualification is done by number of wins and tie break is the entry order. There are four players in the highest group with one loss. We have one round left. It is allowed to give a free round to top player(s) and directly qualify him. It is also allowed to make a rematdh on the last round.

Which do you think is better:

• directly qualify number 1 and 2 and pair 3 vs. 4 or
  pair all the players and qualify better loser by tie breaker?

[Elom]

I presume that only three players can qualify.

In method one, two players get a bye. In method two, full use is made of the extra round and qualification must still be earned by all players.

Pushing an equal effort requirement for qualification as far into the tournament as possible seems fairer to me, so I would choose option two, but pair 1 against 4 and 2 against 3.

[Javaness2]

What a strange tournament! Is this a real event?

What does entry order mean? Is it an initial ranking of players based on their rating?
As a rematch is allowed in the rules, I think that the rematch option should be chosen.
However, I find it really strange that a rematch is allowed.

[Matti]

What a strange tournament! Is this a real event?

It is not a real event (yet). We have a qualification tournament for the Finnish Championship league. 16 players play four rounds and the winer qualifies directly. Others play a fifth round and two more player with four wins qualify. Now there is a small chance that we do not get the 16 players and I was thinking what to do then.

What does entry order mean? Is it an initial ranking of players based on their rating?

It is more complex.

As a rematch is allowed in the rules, I think that the rematch option should be chosen.
However, I find it really strange that a rematch is allowed.

The rematch is only allowed to avoid pairing someone down.

[Matti]

I presume that only three players can qualify.

In this case yes.

In method one, two players get a bye. In method two, full use is made of the extra round and qualification must still be earned by all players.

Pushing an equal effort requirement for qualification as far into the tournament as possible seems fairer to me, so I would choose option two, but pair 1 against 4 and 2 against 3.

In the game 1 vs 4 player1 has (almost) nothing at stake. If he loses, he will anyway get the 3rd place by tie breaker.

[Bill Spight]

We have a qualification tournament for the Finnish Championship league. 16 players play four rounds and the winer qualifies directly. Others play a fifth round and two more player with four wins qualify. Now there is a small chance that we do not get the 16 players and I was thinking what to do then.

What if you go by losses instead of wins? OC, byes favor certain players, but there you are. Counting byes as players, and eliminating actual players with 2 losses, we have this.

After Round 1: 8 players with 0 losses, 8 players with 1 loss.
After Round 2: 4 players with 0 losses, 8 players with 1 loss.
After Round 3: 2 players with 0 losses, 6 players with 1 loss.
After Round 4: 1 player with 0 losses, 4 players with 1 loss.
After Round 5: 1 player with 0 losses, 2 players with 1 loss.

After Round 1 you may give byes to players with 1 loss. That may or may not be unpalatable, but that way you quickly eliminate the need for byes.

Edit: You could always give byes to the lowest seed or seeds (with 1 loss after Round 1). That way the qualifiers will rarely have had a bye.