I suppose the circumstances may influence the decision.
- In this case player B & C absolutely didn't know each other.
- The tourney was a low buy-in like 250$.
- Player B ask the question as a "joke" with a smile.
- Player C answer in the same way while laughting.
- After player C call, player c hesitate an average time before folding.
I don't try to influence the ruling and I respect and register your answers escorting BOTH B & C out of the casino (!) ... But once again I suppose the circumstances may dictate the ruling no?
GG
GG,
I agree, a good TD will always consider all of the circumstances when making these decisions. Your description above of this as being a lighthearted incident implies that it wasn't truly meant to be a blatant attempt at collusion. This, of course, is in stark contrast to my embellished version above that depicts two outright cheaters. The risk though is even
"innocent collaboration vs. deliberate collusion" can result in unfairness to another player and jeopardize the overall integrity of the game. Even in the lighthearted context it is possible and even likely that Player B would not have made the call had Player C refused to answer. Player B must have been thinking about possibly folding, otherwise even his "joke" would not have made any sense. We have all been in those situations where we could make the borderline call if we were the last to act but would have to fold it otherwise. In this case, after Player B folds it is also very likely that Player C would have folded as he was telling the truth all along. So, without the innocent frivolity it is very possible that Player A would have been the winner. This, of course, is exactly what Player A is complaining about. So, you have a truly innocent Player A complaining about the seemingly
frivolous collaboration of Players B & C. Players B & C may not have been outright cheaters but they were certainly not innocent and were not playing by the rules.
Best regards,
B~