Contracts and Poker: What are the Rules?

A player zooms back to his seat after the break, but the dealer rules that his hand is dead. “But I got here before the last card was dealt, and the TDA Rules say that is timely,” the player protests. The dealer replies, “Not in this cardroom.” Is the dealer right?

One goal of the TDA rules is uniformity. Imagine a poker world in which you could enter a tournament in any casino, at least in the U.S., with the confidence that the rules were the same. In this, poker is like contract law, for contract law is state law, rather than federal law, and a lawyer whose contract crosses borders has to be aware that different rules apply in different places. Even in cardrooms that have adopted the TDA rules, there might not be uniformity for at least two reasons: 1) the Rules assume that there is agreement on the underlying rules of poker, which may not be true, and 2) the Rules are subordinate to house rules, which can vary.

Regarding the rules of poker, I recall an episode of the Maverick television show called “According to Hoyle.” Maverick’s nemesis Samantha Crawford suggested that they should play 5-card stud “according to Hoyle” and all agreed. Edmond Hoyle (1672-1769) – a member of the Poker Hall of Fame – lived long before poker became established, but he standardized rules for other card games and many later treatises employed his name. Crawford sprung her trap when she claimed that her pair of nines prevailed over Maverick’s straight, citing Hoyle for the rule that straights do not count in 5-card stud unless previously agreed.

I was skeptical of this story, but I found an 1875 version of Hoyle on Google Books in which the rank of hands skips from “Three [of a kind]” to “Flush” and furthermore states that “‘Four’ [of a kind] beats all the other hands,” all of which implies that straights and straight flushes do not count. So there may well be conflicting versions of the rules of poker.

For example, I had always heard that there was a poker rule that a player could not disclose the contents of his hand during play; he could lie about it, but he could not tell the truth. This issue was put to the test during the 2006 World Series of Poker main event, when Jamie Gold frequently disclosed the contents of his hand without penalty. On one occasion, Gold said to a player, “I’ve got top-top [top pair, top kicker],” which in fact he had. If the rule is that a player may not disclose the contents of his hand, then when Gold told the other player, “I’ve got top-top,” the other player would justifiably translate this to mean, “I have a hand other than top-top.” Gold thereby secured an edge by disclosing accurate information.

TDA Rule 109, simply states that “participants may not: … 1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands ….” This rule is unavoidably fuzzy around the edges. It clearly prevents a player from saying, “I have A-K of spades,” but does it prevent a player from saying, “I can beat two pair” or “I’ve got a really big hand”? A rule to the effect of “Say nothing about your hand” has the advantage of being less vague, but would not be popular with many players.

The rule forbidding disclosure also has a gap in dealing with the situation commonly described as “show one show all.” Rule 62 states:

One-player-to-a-hand is in effect. Among other things, this rule prohibits showing a hand to or discussing strategy with another player, advisor, or spectator.

Since no remedy is stated for violation of this rule, one would assume the remedy is one of the standard penalties for violating a rule and not a requirement that the player show the card or cards to the other players. Perhaps “show one show all” is another customary rule or rule of poker that is not fully addressed in the TDA Rules. I have even known TDs to interpret this rule to mean that if you show one card after you have won the hand, you must show the other card as well. This interpretation makes no sense.

Perhaps for the sake of consistency and completeness, the TDA Rules could contain a link to some version of the rules of poker. Those rules would then become the “Official” TDA Rules of Poker. I note that both Card Player and the WPT post such rules on their web sites.

Regarding local rules, most poker rooms make their rules available to players on the room’s website, in a handout, or post them on a wall. In the event of a conflict, the preamble to the TDA Rules states that “Poker TDA rules supplement the rules of the house.” Thus, our player who arrived before the last card was dealt would be out of luck because the local rule trumps the TDA rule. Knowing this, a diligent player should become familiar not only with the TDA Rules, but with the house rules as well. For example, a house rule might determine whether in a limit game, the maximum number of raises is three or four. I once read a house rule that stated that the number of raises was four even in a non-limit game! I was able to cite this rule to my advantage when I wanted to be sure I could make the fourth raise without risk of facing another raise. It pays to know the rules!

The TDA Rules, however, often assume that there is a house rule in many areas where there may in fact be no rule. I wonder if it might be preferable for the TDA to state a default rule that can be trumped if the casino adopts its own rule.

The great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man.” While that is no doubt true, in the world of poker, as in the world of contracts, uniformity remains a goal for which we should strive. In the meantime, brush up on your local rules as well as the TDA Rules. ♠

Scott J. Burnham is the retired Curley Professor of Commercial Law at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Washington. This column is adapted from his article, A Transactional Lawyer Looks at the Rules of Tournament Poker, which was published in Gaming Law Review and Economics. He can be contacted at [email protected].