Common Sense in Rulings

I think the image of someone who is a "rules authority" in any area, whether that area be poker, some other game, or the real world, is one of being a stickler for abiding by the rules, and he does not like to see a person receiving different treatment under the rules than anyone else. I am not qualified to speak for others, but the description you have just read does not pertain to me at all. Yes, I am a leading authority on poker rules. My rulebook, "Robert's Rules of Poker," is what I believe to be the finest poker rulebook in the world. But I am a great believer in flexibility when rules are administered. Let me explain.



When rules are broken, it is extremely important to look at why the rule was made and why the rule was broken before you start administering what passes for justice. And yes, you also are encouraged to take into consideration who broke the rule. Rule-breakers generally are three types of people:



1. An inexperienced person who made an innocent error.

2. A person who should have known better but for some reason did not.

3. An angle-shooter who was trying to gain an unfair advantage.



These people should not all be treated alike when a rule is broken. Despite the fact that the decision-maker may not know anything about the offender, especially if the offense takes place in a tournament format, the circumstances surrounding the incident will very often provide information about the type of person committing the offense and the motivation for its commission. My poker background says that the vast majority of violations come from people in category one, novices or inattentive people who made innocent mistakes. I will also add that such people are wonderful for poker, and should certainly not be driven away from the game by giving them what is perceived by them to be unfair treatment – and, in fact, really is unfair treatment.



There is an old adage about the spirit of the law being of more importance than the letter of the law. I am writing this column because I am seeing a large number of poker cases in which the letter of the law is enforced in a manner that violates the spirit of the law. The two most common poker laws that are being enforced too literally are the law that verbal action is binding and the law stating that in a tournament, you are not supposed to show your hand. Here is the text of the first, taken from my own rulebook, and an incident connected with it in which I think the law was applied too literally.



"A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to take that action." The purpose of the rule is to prevent people from misleading opponents by saying one thing and doing another. The problem occurs when a player does not realize what the betting action to him has been. Some of our rules show leniency when this happens. For example, if you just put in the amount of a call, not realizing the pot has been raised, you are allowed to change your action and fold if you have not caused action to take place behind you. The problem arises in no-limit hold'em when you say "raise" and have misunderstood the actions in front of you.



The following e-mail was sent to me by a cardroom manager earlier this year. "Here's what happened in a no-limit hold'em tournament: Blinds are $500-$1,000, the under-the-gun player (seat No. 1) clearly states 'all in' and pushes out $11,500. The dealer clearly calls out the raise. Seats No. 2, 3, and 4 fold. Seat No. 5 clearly states 'raise' and throws in a $5,000 chip. Then, the dealer makes the mistake of throwing the chip back and saying, 'This player made it $11,500.' Seat No. 5 then says, 'Oh, then I pass,' and pushes his hand forward facedown. The dealer then makes the next mistake of taking his cards and putting them in the muck before calling for a decision."



I think the ruling actually made by the shift supervisor was a poor one. He went into the muck, gave the player back his hand, and forced him to raise the pot. This was better than forcing him to raise without a hand, but it was still unfair to both the all-in player (who might not be happy to get called) and the player who had said "raise." I think the proper ruling was to allow the player to fold. He had given a clear indication by putting a $5,000 chip into the pot that he had not understood the betting to that point. As action had not taken place behind him, I would let him fold with no penalty.



Here is the text from my rulebook for the second law: Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player in a multihanded pot may not show any cards during a deal. Heads up, a player may not show any cards unless the event has only two remaining players, or is winner-take-all. If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one's hand during the play may be penalized. (You should note that this rule is the only place where my rules differ from the Tournament Directors Association rules, which are more stringent with the player.)



Here is an incident described in the Vol. 19/No. 17 issue of Card Player. "Tony Hartmann raised from the button and Sass reraised from the big blind. Hartmann then reraised, and Sass called. Sass then mistakenly turned up his hand (9-9), thinking Hartmann was all in. The floorman gave Sass a choice: muck his hand or sit out for two rounds." Sass chose to take the penalty and retained his hand. He eventually won the pot after further betting, facing an unimproved A-K.



I think this floorperson's ruling was dreadful. In the first place, I have never until now heard of giving a penalty for one course of action in the betting and not giving a penalty for another course of action. The decision-maker has absolutely no business influencing a player's poker decision in this manner. But even setting aside this absurdity, why should this player be receiving a penalty? It is obvious that he made an error and thought his opponent was all in. Isn't the fact that he has to play with his hand faceup a sufficient penalty for his honest mistake? The rule he violated is not aimed at the player who errs while thinking his opponent is all in (or thinking that he has won a pot when there is still a live hand out against him). It is aimed at the player who is trying to influence his opponent's decision to the detriment of the other players. There should have been no penalty invoked here.



The decision-maker needs to realize how much power he has. He is not forced in a situation to shut his eyes and follow the letter of the law when the violation is an honest mistake that has done no damage to anyone. Instead, the floorperson or tournament director can simply make the fair decision "for the good of the game." Nearly everyone has a sense of fairness, and it should not be suppressed because the letter of the law has been broken.



Unfortunately, I have hardly ever seen this power allowable under the law to use common sense exercised by a poker decision-maker. And the few times when that person has tried to follow common sense rather than the letter of the law, I have yet to see a bad decision made. Folks, it is legal and proper to use your head when making a decision.



Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.