Didn't Your Mama Raise You Better?

My mailbox has certainly been full this week. I have gotten all sorts of interesting questions and comments about poker situations. I am starting to think the game of poker might really take off, what do you think? Poker rooms are full all the time, and I continue to be amazed at some of the things that take place. Some actions by players truly astound me, and some of the reactions by cardroom personnel are even more amazing.

Here is a letter I recently received from avid poker player Denny Lynch. He is a regular poster on the poker forum recreation.gambling.poker, aka RGP. He also posted the letter on RGP to get other players' reactions.

In a recent Card Player, Jan Fisher wrote, "While my decision … might be contrary to the strict interpretation of the rules, I believed it was in the spirit of what was fair and just."

I'd appreciate your consideration of the following incident and your opinions on whether the floorperson's decision was fair and just.

It's a no-limit hold'em game. A tourist couple sits down. Three hands later, a regular local player, a young kid, asks another local, "Wanna chop?" when it be-comes heads up on the turn. The other local agrees, and they split the pot. The tourists ask what the heck is going on, and it's explained to them that chopping is permitted in this room if both parties agree.

Four hands later, the kid is heads up against the tourist husband. Both a possible straight and flush are on the board on the river. The kid asks, "Wanna chop?" and the tourist says, "Yes," and throws his cards down. The kid says, "Wait. I didn't say I was chopping. I just asked if you were. I have a straight. I'm not chopping." And, he bet.

The tourist protested. I asked that a floorperson be called, and he said that chops were purely between players, and that the house could not be involved. I said this was clearly an angle shot and should not be allowed. The floorperson said there was nothing he could do.

The kid then said he was just trying to use "psychology" to see if the tourist had the flush, and he had done nothing wrong. I wasn't involved in the hand and didn't know any of the parties involved, but I think the floorperson, in the spirit of what is fair and just as opposed to a literal interpretation of the rules, should have split the pot.

What do you think the floorperson's action should be here?"

I am very unhappy to see these things occur in a cardroom. Let's take each of the two situations separately. In the first scenario, the two players theoretically had the opportunity to bet the other players out of the hand and then chop up the money. In my opinion, this should not be allowed. If this situation were to arise and occur so quickly as to not be able to undo it, I would caution the players that there would be no chops allowed in the future once the flop was out. If they wanted to check down a hand and let the best hand win, there was no way the floorperson could stop that, but that would be for them to figure out. Chops, other than the blinds, should not be allowed. They give the perception of collusion, in my opinion, and make the other players uncomfortable. If you don't want to bet against your friends, you should play at different tables. It hurts the integrity of the game. Regardless, the house declared that it was allowed if both parties agreed.

Then, in the second scenario, there was an offer and an acceptance. The floorperson had already said that chops were OK if the two parties agreed. An offer and an acceptance, even when oral and not written, is a binding contract. How, then, could the player who offered the chop take it back once he had received an acceptance? This clearly was a shot and should not have been allowed. This pot should have been split, and the kid strongly cautioned against this type of angle shooting. The tourist who had been "victimized" would have been within his right to take this situation to the cardroom manager, and I also believe this floorperson should be counseled on the correct way to handle these types of situations. Regardless of the written letter of the law, the only rule that truly matters is that the floorperson should always consider the best interest of the game and players when making a decision. Clearly, this is not what happened.

Many contributors to the news forum where this was posted also answered. There were a few who said, "Tough luck for the tourist, it was good gamesmanship." However, the overwhelming majority cried foul, and were appalled that the house did not back this hand as a chopped pot. Most who took the time to reply agreed that the spirit of the rules had surely been broken, and they hated to see this type of shot taken in the game.

Remember, when you are playing, you don't have to "take it." If you think a ruling is either unfair or just plain wrong, speak up. There are many new and inexperienced people working in the industry these days. Until they get up to speed, it is our job as players to assist whenever possible. It is your duty to cry foul when you believe one has been committed. It is also your right to play in the cardroom where you believe you will be protected, even if you are not a regular. That should, of course, be every cardroom. Class dismissed.

As always, I will answer any of your poker-related questions and comments. For information on poker cruises and other upcoming events, please visit www.cardplayercruises.com.