[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I got the lowdown as to what happened...there was quite a few people involved on Saturday and many of them were probably playing in the event on Sunday, so, they knew who they were and they got the message.

Here's what happened...let me know what you all would have done...

The Saturday tournament is down to 12 players. Table 1 wants to chop 12 ways, table 2 doesn't. They are 6 and 6 at this point. Well, table 1 decides to pass the blinds around until table 2 knocks out 2 players, hoping that when they have made the final table they could talk about chopping again.

Anthony told table 1 that this was blatant collusion and that it would not be tolerated. They folded around (trying to make it look legal) for 2-3 more hands when table 2 knocked out a player.

Anthony thought it was in the best interest of everyone involved at that point to make the final table 11 handed. I believe this was a great decision, however, I told him that everyone who was on table 1 should have gotten a penalty.

He said that even though they talked about it and they DID fold around for a couple of hands he didn't believe they would be doing it right under his nose directly after he told them not to. So, he wasn't POSITIVE that they were colluding based on 2 or 3 hands, a ruling that I can agree with. Had it happened for a few more hands, I see no reason why those players wouldn't have been disqualified.

The announcement was kinda silly because only a few people got the point, but they got the point none-the-less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty ugly -- I'd hate to be the TD when it happened, cause thats a pretty tough call to make.

But I'll tell you this. If I thought that I had to warn them again the next night, I would simply prefer to not let them enter the tournament.