Collusion or not.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

3 player left at flop.
Player A (10.000) goes all-in
Player B (30.000) asks player C (70.000) if he will call?
Player C says "No!"
Player B calls
Player C folds
Player A (with a weaker hand than B) complains and call for the floor.

For info :

- The floor ruled the hand alive but suspended both B & C for a full table turn AFTER the hand.
- Player A was aliminated during this hand.
- Players B & C didn't know each other.

Your opinion?

[BillM16]

Yes, it was collusion and it should not have been allowed.  Player A should win the hand and both Player B and C should have been severely penalized or disqualified.

[Nick C]

Bill,

You can punish a player suspected of collusion, but how can you award the pot to the player with the losing hand? I don't agree and I don't know of any rule that would support your suggestion.

[BillM16]

Bill,

You can punish a player suspected of collusion, but how can you award the pot to the player with the losing hand? I don't agree and I don't know of any rule that would support your suggestion.

64: Ethical Play I don't tolerate cheating.

[Max D]

Agree with penalizing player B, C should be warned or penalized depending on his answer (is it just a no with no thought, or is it really a no, go ahead and call ...).  A can never win the pot, card speak.

[BillM16]

Agree with penalizing player B, C should be warned or penalized depending on his answer (is it just a no with no thought, or is it really a no, go ahead and call ...).  A can never win the pot, card speak.

Hi Max - It is always hard to make specific judgements based on forum content - one needs to be present.  That is why I wrote "penalized or disqualified." Depending on firsthand information it is possible (though not probable) that I would have allowed C to fold and give him a penalty.  It is most likely that I would rule that Player B is disqualified.  So, yes cards speak: Player A is the only one with a live hand and is the winner. 

Let's take GG's OP and embellish it a little:

3 player left at flop.
Player A (10.000) goes all-in
Player B (30.000) talks to player C (70.000) and says: We should bust this guy but I don't have a calling hand.  I only have a king-deuce and I certainly don't want to invest 1/3 of my stack if you have a better hand.  Can you call this guy so we can get rid of him?
Player C says: I understand you completely and I'd love to get rid of him too.  But, I don't have a hand either, I only have nine-deuce and promise I won't call you or raise you if you will call and try to take him out.
Player B gives Player C a wink and calls
Player C grins at Player B and folds
Player A with QJ suited complains and call for the floor.

Now what would you do?

[Nick C]

Bill...Players B and C would be escorted out of the casino, but there is NO WAY Player A gets those chips!

[BillM16]

Bill...Players B and C would be escorted out of the casino, but there is NO WAY Player A gets those chips!

Player B and C are disqualified and their hands are dead. Player A wins as he has the only live hand.  You can disagree if you want.

[Max D]

Player B&C get disqualified, shot right at the table.   But one question can you disqualify them before the end of the hand?  it makes sense as the new scenario is much more obvious, but i don't know where it falls in the "rules" of stopping a hand before completion.

[Guillaume Gleize]

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 B 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

[BillM16]

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~