You Make the Call

Most poker rooms employ a determining rule that the floorman's decision is final. This leaves room for decisions to be made that are in the best interest of the game. But what happens when players misinterpret the rules, and make a final determination on a rule based on their beliefs and not on what the rule was meant to mean?

I received a letter recently from Mike in Massachusetts. In his letter, he described the following situation:

My buddy and I are recreational players who make it down to the casino every week or so. Recently, we were both in a $10-$20 hold'em game. Jay, a tight player who is a regular (he plays nearly every day), raised to $20 from early position.

Immediately after his raise, before anyone else acted, Jay's friend, who was not in the game, walked over to Jay and started needling him about his raise, and wanted to look at his hand. Jay initially did not want his friend to look, but subsequently allowed him to pick up the hand from the table to have a look. His friend was standing behind him, and the cards clearly crossed the rail.

My friend and I immediately objected, as did the dealer. We recalled a similar incident that we had heard about in another casino in which the hand was declared dead. The floorperson was called and, after hearing multiple versions from the players, asked the dealer what had happened. After the dealer described what had happened, the floorperson declared the hand dead. One of the other regulars then objected and said it was questionable whether the cards had really crossed the rail. The floorperson then said that she was going to have no part in this decision, and called her superior.

The floor supervisor came over and without questioning the dealer said, "I know exactly what happened and this is my ruling: The hand plays and all of you are warned that if this ever happens again, there will be some kind of penalty."

The hand played out uneventfully and Jay won an uncalled pot. My friend and I both thought this was a horrible decision. We both believed that Jay received preferential treatment because he's a regular, and that if it had been either of us, our hand would have been declared dead.

This situation is one that I have seen happen before. There are two rules that could come into play here:

Rule No. 1 – One player to a hand. This rule is in the casino's rulebook, but is intended to prevent two or more players from giving or receiving information about the play of a hand. Although this rule is not specifically designed to prevent a player from showing his hand to someone else, it has often been interpreted as such.

Rule No. 2 – Prohibits a player from removing cards from the table (referring to the cards crossing the rail). There is no reference to this rule in the casino's rulebook. It is important for players to keep their cards over the table at all times.

Because this casino's rulebook does not address this specific situation, I think the supervisor made the correct ruling. Rules that make a player's hand dead are intended to do so for reasons that may influence the outcome of a hand. In this case, the friend looking at the hand did not change anything, and therefore deserved a warning.

All players should make an effort to keep their cards to themselves out of respect for the other players. I would also like to see players not try to penalize a player by eschewing a rule to work in their favor. If someone makes an honest mistake, give him or her the benefit of the doubt and a friendly piece of advice to go along with it.

Editor's note: Michael O'Malley's website is: http://members.home.net/rzitup.