This is the format which works best in my opinion. It's less confusing for everyone and has only 3 rules:
when you leave the queue you will become player 1 for the next game
when you finish your game as player 1 you will be player 2 on the same machine for the next game
when you finish your game as player 2 you will then join the back of the queue.
It also has the benefit of not being able to start the next game until the player has joined from the queue (as they are player 1). Stopping the remaining player from starting to play as soon as the previous game has ended (possibly open to abuse and restarting if they drain straight away).
I'd also recommend:
Setting the queue size to at least 4 people to start with (it can always be reduced by 2 by adding another machine after the break when people are familiar with the format).
If the player at the front of the queue isn't ready/present when it is their turn to play, their card is moved to the back of the queue - this will help keep the comp moving and mean you don't have to go chasing players (another reason to have at least 4 players in the queue).
Having a break of half an hour to reorder the players and allow everyone a quick breather. (Those who have played the least games become player 1 after the break, those with the most games start in the queue after the break)
The reordering is also essential to break a possible loop of playing the same players on the same games, which has happened in all 3 of these types of comps I've ran/played in.
It's a fun format which maxes out TGP quickly, and I'm sure everyone will pick up the rules very quickly.
A small note: IFPA have changed the calculations of TGP calculations for this format. Most comps are calculated on the 'number of meaningful games played by the winner'. This is now calculated by the average number of games played by everyone. (Which shouldn't differ by more than a couple of games if no one drops out midway through the comp)
