"Suit the action to the word, the word to the action … " - Hamlet
Several months ago, I was playing in a tournament in which the following two incidents occurred. On the very first hand, a player at my table looked down at his cards and casually flicked them away. It was one of those barely discernible, pro-style flicks that usually moves the cards all of about two inches, which in this case was just about the distance that one of them traveled. But in one of those little mysteries of life, the other one took off like it had hit a patch of black ice and then been caught in a jet stream, and despite the dealer's attempt to block it, the card ended up on the floor. Since the player in question could hardly be thought to have acted in anger over his inaugural hand - one that cost him not a single chip - it was with a touch of sheepishness that the dealer called for a floorman, who, after being told of the inexplicable aerodynamic episode, instructed the dealer to deal the player out for the mandatory 20 minutes.
Now let's fast-forward several hours. We were just a couple of players away from making it to the money when a hand came down involving an all-in player and two live players, one of whom had gone through an awful lot of chips in the last several hands. This last detail is pertinent insofar as it relates to the mindset of someone who only minutes before had looked to be a shoo-in for the final table, but was now reeling from the possibility of missing the money altogether; someone, in other words, who might not be thinking all that clearly. Indeed, his less than optimal state of mind would soon rear its foggy head, for when the river card came and his live opponent checked and turned over his cards, the snakebitten player stared sadly at his no-pair hand and began to toss it away, thereby overlooking the two running cards that had filled his inside straight. It was an untimely mistake, but mistakes are part of the game, as is bearing their consequences.
Unfortunately, the rubbernecker seated next to him, indifferent to the poker concept of personal responsibility, proceeded to alert his neighbor to the oversight with the comment: "Don't throw that away, you've got a straight."
Because we were so close to making the money, a floorperson had been stationed at our table, and was witness to the dirty deed. Ironically, it was the same floorperson who on the tournament's first hand had presided over the mandatory penalty ruling, and I say "ironically" because his response to this far more serious violation was … absolutely nothing. In conspicuous contrast to the penalty invoked against the inadvertent act, this deliberate breach drew no penalty whatsoever, and the offending player missed not so much as a single hand. (Alas, the same could not be said for the victim of his transgression, whose elimination a few moments later it all but assured.) If something seems amiss here - if the penalty (or lack thereof) for either of these offenses seems out of whack - it's an impression that becomes even more magnified when the cases are considered side by side.
I was reminded of the whole business a week or so ago while looking over the Tournament Directors Association rules that were on display at a tournament I was attending out of town. Two rules in particular caught my eye, and as is the case with the incidents related above, they become more interesting when considered in light of each other. The first one was Rule 7 - "Penalties: A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents."
Note that the TDA rule doesn't mandate a penalty when cards leave the table, but allows for a discretionary response, thereby acknowledging the fact that cards sometimes hit the floor as a result of abusive, disruptive behavior, and sometimes land there accidentally. It's a reasonable distinction, and the fact that vague circumstances or conflicting accounts may at times make a determination difficult is more a reflection of life in an imperfect world than of a distinction not worth making.
Nevertheless, some cardrooms that employ the TDA's other guidelines ignore this distinction, favoring instead a zero-tolerance policy in those cases in which cards hit the floor. My disagreement with this approach is not based on an opposition to zero-tolerance policies per se, but on the conviction that if you're going to take a zero-tolerance approach to some violations while employing a discretionary approach to others, it should be the more egregious breaches, and not the lesser ones, that trigger the mandatory penalties.
Most people would agree that throwing a card off the table, even if done in anger, is a far less serious offense than coaching someone with his hand - an act that in a cash game can cost a player money, and in a tournament might damage, cripple, or in the worst-case scenario, eliminate him altogether. As poker sins go, it's a mortal one, which brings us to the second TDA rule that caught my attention, a rule I find puzzling in light of one that precedes it. The TDA's Rule 37 reads: "Verbally disclosing the contents of your hand or advising a player how to play a hand
may result in a penalty." Now this is interesting. Advising a player how to play his hand may result in a penalty? If ever the distinction between "MAY result in a penalty" and "WILL result in one" would be useful and appropriate, this would seem to be such an occasion.
Indeed, the wording seems at odds with the TDA's own precedent, established in the aforementioned Rule 7 - a rule that goes out of its way to distinguish between gray-area actions that
may result in penalties and the kind of "abusive, disruptive behavior" that
will result in them. The only way to abandon the mandatory aspect in the latter statute without contradicting the standard laid out in the earlier one is to characterize the violation of the one-player-to-a-hand rule as not necessarily disruptive or abusive, for if it is, a mandatory penalty would be in play.
I hardly think the TDA intends to suggest that coaching another player in the middle of action does not qualify as disruptive conduct, nor is it the intention of this column to impugn their fine work. That the TDA even exists serves to illustrate the considerable progress made in recent years in the development of an effective set of standardized rules. But, the dichotomous responses to the tournament incidents cited above are also illustrative. Despite the broad consensus that's been achieved regarding the rules that govern the game, considerably less accord has been reached as to the most effective means and measures by which to ensure their observance.
