You are the Tournament Director: When is a Deal not a Deal?

Situation: There are four players left in a NLH tournament. Player A has 80% of the chips in play and is dominating the table as the other players try to move up the prize money ladder. The other players each have about 6% of the chips each. As player A has such a significant lead the other three remaining players suggest splitting their winnings and ask player A if he minds. Player A just shrugs his shoulders but doesn’t say anything. Three hands later players B, C and D go all-in in the same pot and Player B wins the pot. All three could have said that they had legitimate hands such as high cards or a pair. Play goes on for just over an hour heads up at which time Player B has made an incredible come back and now has a marginal chip lead. At this point player A gets up from his seat approaches you and objects saying that the other players have colluded against him and that he should be awarded first prize. Do you agree?

Matt Savage Matt:
Again if I’m there I’m not going to allow them to split their prize winnings in this manner and would be careful to watch these players as they move forward. In player A’s argument that they have colluded against then, I think it’s too late, I think he definitely needs to say something at the time of the infraction then we could take a look at it at from that point but to come up later in the tournament and object now I think its too late I think he needs to say something at that time you know I think he has to realise. I’m sure at that time he feels like he has the best of it and is OK with that type of situation but really you know it’s kind of a collusion thing but he needs to say something at the time.

Thomas Kremser Thomas:
If I find out the situation as it happens, I would give penalties to the 3 players. If Player A complains later, there is nothing I can do for him as he accepted the situation as it happened and we cannot verify the players hands. I would not award him 1st prize.

Jack Jack:
By shrugging his shoulders he was giving tacit approval. Once he did not veto deal to start with he gave up his right to complain later.

Liam Flood Liam:
No. Player A should have said something at the time. They were honest about it, they asked him.

Mel Mel:
No. Player A is trying to abuse the fact that he shrugged his shoulders. If anybody wants to do a deal at a final table I always ask the people one by one so that this situation won’t happen. Continue play on as soon as possible.

Marty Wilson Marty:
He should have pointed it out at the time. I don’t know how you could determine whether there was collusion it should have been sorted out at the time, you don’t cry wolf when the guy’s come back at you. I don’t agree with him.

The Mob Verdict:

It is quite clear that all our tournament directors here are in agreement of one thing. That is that it is now too late for Player A to object. He may have thought it insignificant at the time he was asked but now it’s different. If he had said something before then he might have an argument, but he didn’t. There are some interesting comments from our TDs about what would have happened if he had objected earlier but that’s not what happened. We’re not quite sure why Thomas would give penalties to the three players though.

This is a true story. It happened a few years ago at the Grosvenor Victoria Casino in London. The tournament director was Jeff Leigh. Jeff runs a very tight ship and is a well respected card room manager with a wealth of experience and (usually) a very clear head in this kind of situation.

However he sided with player A in this instance and awarded him first place money. Not only that but he withheld the other players prize money and gave them warnings that there membership may be revoked.

Player A was Phillipe Marmorstein. The others included Garry Bush and Jamie Posner. At the time Jamie was a very inexperienced tournament player and he was the one that finished heads up. Players B, C and D did all get paid in the end.

Click Here to Comment on This Article