Robert's Rules

As I mentioned in a previous column, I have completed work on Robert's Rules of Poker, a comprehensive poker rulebook for cardrooms. I am not trying to make any money off it, so you can download a digital copy for free at my website, diamondcs.net/~thecoach. The Gamblers Book Shop in Las Vegas now has a nicely bound edition, which it sells for $9.95 (none of which goes to me). I did this project because I thought it would be good for poker to have a rulebook that anyone could obtain and use. I believe it is the finest poker rulebook in the world.

In this column, I would like to talk about one of the features of the rulebook, an explanation of some important aspects of decision-making. This is an important subsection in my rulebook that gives eight factors that are involved in making a ruling. Some of these factors are addressed in other rulebooks (especially those that I have had a hand in constructing), and others are unique to this latest work. Let's look at each factor, then see how it would have practical application.

1. "Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling." I believe Mike Caro was the first person to recommend the adoption of a rule like this to give a cardroom some flexibility in decision-making. Here is an example of when the literal enforcement of a rule would be unjust: There are two players left in a no-limit hold'em tournament. One player, who is not too experienced, moves all in, and the other player is in deep thought on whether to call. While he is thinking, the bettor gets up from the table and says to the dealer, "I have to run to the restroom; can't wait. Please turn my hand up if he calls." (To make the fair thing to do even clearer, let us suppose that the restroom run was caused by the cardroom food he ate that day not being up to the high quality that a poker player normally gets in that casino.) The dealer does not reply, and the player dashes out. While he is gone, the opponent calls. When the dealer reaches out to turn the absent player's hand over, the caller says, "You are not allowed to turn that hand up; you have to muck it." The dealer puts the hand on top of the muck so that it's identifiable, and you are called to the table to make a ruling just as the absent player comes back. How would you rule?

The letter of the law explicitly says no one may turn a player's hand up for him at the showdown. The spirit of the law says the bettor should get the pot if he holds the winning hand. The rule about a player being responsible for turning his own hand up is designed to cover a player who has not been absent during the deal, not one who has been there for everything and is only waiting for the opponent to act at the very end. It is nice for a decision-maker to have the "Caro Rule" available to back up what is surely the fair and proper decision.

2. "Decisions of the shift supervisor are final." A rule similar to this is in nearly every set of cardroom rules; discussion is not necessary.

3. "The proper time to draw attention to an error or irregularity is when it occurs or is first noticed. Any delay may affect the ruling." Suppose in a hold'em game that the dealer forgets to burn a card on the turn. The players apparently do not notice, and there is a bet and two calls. The river card is dealt, at which point one of the callers says, "Hey, there was no card burned on the turn." You are called over to make a ruling. What is your decision? The important point here is that by not speaking up before the last card was dealt, the player put himself in a position to either accept or reject the last card, depending on whether it helped his hand. You should rule that once the card had been acted on by the whole table, it was "accepted" and must stay. Never give a player control over accepting or rejecting a boardcard in this type of situation.

4. "If an incorrect rule interpretation or decision by an employee is made in good faith, the establishment has no liability." We are a very litigious society these days. If I owned a piece of a casino, I would want my interest protected by a clause such as this. No matter how well you write a rulebook, it is not unusual for an employee to make a bad ruling. Most poker games are not big enough to have a sum at stake that could seriously injure an investor in the business – but look at some of today's tournament prizes. You would not want to be sued for such a sum because your tournament director made an incorrect ruling according to your rulebook. This clause provides some protection against such an event.

5. "A ruling may be made regarding a pot if it has been requested before the next deal starts (or before the game either ends or changes to another table). Otherwise, the result of a deal must stand. The first riffle of the shuffle marks the start of the next deal." This is a standard rule in the better cardrooms. I added the part in parentheses to handle those situations in which the next deal is delayed for a substantial length of time, because I do not believe in resurrecting an issue regarding who won the money once a person has had a chance to walk out the door with it.

6. "If a pot has been incorrectly awarded and mingled with chips that were not in the pot, but the time limit for a ruling request given in the previous rule has been complied with, management may determine how much was in the pot by reconstructing the betting, and then transfer that amount to the proper player." I used to think that once a player took in a pot, it was his. Then I paid a little more attention to how fast a dealer can actually push a pot, and decided that a player needs some protection so that he can get money to which he is actually entitled. Even if a pot is quickly taken in and intermingled with other chips, the correct amount in it can be reconstructed. No one is eager to start counting money out of a player's own chips, but in certain circumstances, we must make it clear that the house has this power.

7. "To keep the action moving, it is possible that a game may be asked to continue even though a decision is delayed for a short period. The delay could be needed to check the overhead camera tape, get the shift supervisor to give the ruling, or some other good reason. In such circumstances, a pot or portion thereof may be impounded by the house while the decision is pending." One of my biggest complaints is that casino security personnel do not fully appreciate their power or duty to help settle poker disputes. Why have a big debate when the overhead camera can definitively settle what actually happened. This calls for security personnel to back up a reel and look at it, which takes longer than players in a game want to wait. So, we should make it clear that this procedure of checking the overhead camera while the game continues is acceptable and suitable for determining the facts.

8. "The same action may have a different meaning depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person's amount of poker experience and past record." Should everyone in a poker game be treated in the same manner? No way! An action by the local shot artist is vastly different from the identical action by a newcomer to poker. As an example, just consider the act of a player "misreading" his hand, thinking he has a straight when he does not.

Confucius once said, "Better wise men than wise laws." The Coach says, "When you do not have wise men, you need wise laws." Not everyone who makes a poker ruling is up to the standards of Confucius. I am trying to help out a decision-maker who's not of that caliber – and those of you who are involved in the dispute he is settling.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. He may be reached at (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free. His books Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Hold'em Poker are available through Card Player.