Re: Canterbury floor ruling
The way I see this, the biggest problem is caused by the floor not taking control of the situation. If there was enough reason on their part to believe that two players might collude, it seems that the easiest answer is to not punish other players, but punish the likely colluder. Seems to me that they shouldn't even be asking you if you'd wait for your table change (which you shouldn't have to do) but saying to the other player that he can't play with this guy, and he'll have to play in another game. Too bad if he can't sit 30/60, if there's enough to keep him off of this player's table, there's enough to say he should just go sit 15/30 or something.
I guess basically, the floor could have handled this situation MUCH better, but it was a judgment call. I still wouldn't let them blame ME for "making the game" play 10-handed because I didn't let another player have the seat I rightfully deserved. Not being a nit at all on your part.
|