Whatever Happened to the Check-Fold?

Here's an irony: the thinner a cardroom's commitment to the enforcement of its rules, the thicker its rulebook will become. This is because many of the problem situations that breed additional regulations are themselves the offshoot of an indifference to core principles. A rulebook the size of a catalog is a symptom, not a cure. Give me a streamlined manual, and a commitment to enforce it, any day of the week.

That said, I have long believed that there's one conspicuous gap in the rules of poker - an area where one of those core principles is left to founder because of the absence of a rule to support it. Although the indiscretion to which it pertains can play havoc with the game, it's generally dealt with "unofficially" - one of those things that floormen will tell you (or used to, anyway) is frowned upon, so please knock it off because it compromises the action. Only one room I've played in adopted a formal rule to address it, posting it prominently on its wall as Rule No. 3: "Please do not fold without a bet to you."

Most players, of course, hang on to their cards; they'd never dream of folding without a bet for the simple reason that they've too often witnessed its damaging effect. We all know how that unfortunate scene goes: In a short field, a card hits the board that causes a player to instantly lose interest in his hand, at which point he "checks out," flicking his cards away in an unforced fold, with the result that the hand now plays out differently than it would have had he simply check-folded. Although some of the time this capricious exit will have no consequence, it will often cost someone an extra bet, and sometimes change the equation so drastically that stacking the chips becomes a spectator sport for the player who otherwise would have claimed the pot.

It's in the aftermath of such moments that debates over the issue, often heated, most frequently break out. These arguments generally hinge on the question of whether or not players have the responsibility to "protect" the players behind them, with one side adamant in the contention that they do, and the other maintaining that while it would certainly be more courteous, no such formal duty exists. The latter position, I believe, is extremely problematic.

Consider the action of the unforced folder above. Although he appears to have followed the law's letter by acting in turn, he's nevertheless managed, with his unprompted fold, to shred its spirit. Poker, remember, is a positional game, and the act-in-turn rule is one of its cornerstones. It exists to prevent players from getting information before they're supposed to have it, and the reason that's so important is that in a positional game, such inappropriate information will be far more helpful - or compromising - to the interests of some players than to others.

Practitioners of the early checkout contend that any action is legitimate as long as it's performed in turn. Folding's a legitimate action, and it's my turn, so what's the problem? What they fail to take into account is that some actions are inherently initiative, and some responsive; I can't, for example, lead with a raise if I'm first to act. Why not? Raising's a legitimate action, and it's my turn, so what's the problem? The problem, of course, is that I need a bet against which to do it. And just as a raise is a responsive act, so too is a fold - and it's no more appropriate to fold without a bet than it's possible to raise without one.

As a practical illustration, imagine for a moment that you're second to act in a threehanded pot with three cards to a straight on board. Now, the river card comes, and it's both an overcard and a fourth connector. All sorts of questions arise, such as: Which is more likely, that this card could have paired your opponent(s), or completed a straight? Is the card needed for the straight something they'd have seen the flop with, given their style of play? If it's a junk card, and one of your opponents is the big blind, is he likely to use that position to represent such a holding? Does he think in such terms, or is he simply not the kind of player who steals? If Player No. 1 checks, and you check, will Player No. 3's instinctive urge to steal be dampened by Player No. 1's notorious tendencies to check-raise?

In other words, it's at moments like this that a poker game should break out - position, bluffing, reading your opponent … all that sort of thing. But please take note that many of these questions, especially the last, become totally moot if Player No. 1 decides (if an arbitrary act can be called a "decision") to check out. And that's a shame, for such considerations and strategies are the very meat of this game called poker.

Some players regard the early checkout as an inalienable right, and cringe at the thought of its prohibition; they insist that it's impossible to determine who, if anyone, will benefit or suffer from an unforced fold, thereby making it a randomly determined matter, in which case everyone enjoys equal protection - which is to say, none at all. But is this a cause worth defending? Why champion the "right" to an inconsiderate practice, arbitrarily committed by players who have no further interest in their hands - when it can so significantly compromise the interests of those who do?

And make no mistake, the consequences can be significant, indeed. If the idea of a lost bet or pot fails to move you, throw a few spices into the mix. Think about a supersatellite, or the next-to-last tournament table with a hefty prize pool. Toss in a big main pot, and a tiny side pot. Add an all-in player eligible for the main pot, a couple of roughly equal stacks facing the most delicate decision of their tournaments, and a river card that leaves the all-in player with a busted hand … do I really need to continue? If you don't like this scenario, there are plenty more from which to choose; the number's limited only by your imagination. Unfortunately, not everyone has to imagine them - they've witnessed them, along with their fallout.

Although many poker rooms still discourage the practice, in far too many places, that policy seems to have fallen by the wayside. The room where I cut my poker teeth provides a case in point. A dozen years ago, it handled the matter like most places: Although there was no official rule against it, in the event of a complaint, the early checkout artist would be asked to cease and desist. If the admonition was ignored, he'd be taken aside for a talk. Go into that same room today and request that the practice be stopped, and half the staff won't even know what you're talking about. In such a climate, the rulebook may be the only means by which to address the issue. My preference for lean rulebooks notwithstanding, this would be one addition I'd applaud - for a rule that protects players from the skewering effects of arbitrary, knee-jerk thoughtlessness is, in my opinion, a good idea whose time has come.