Contracts and Poker: Providing Information

I bet and a player asks me how many chips I have behind. Do I have to tell him?
They say that poker is a game of incomplete information. So is contracts. When you are negotiating a deal, how much of what you know do you have to tell the other party? Probably the most important rule is that while you usually don’t have to affirmatively disclose anything, if you choose to disclose, what you say has to be accurate. So if a homebuyer asks, “Hey, isn’t this the house where that guy was murdered?” The seller is perfectly free to say, “That is for me to know and for you to find out.” But if in fact it is that house, the seller can’t say, “Nope. Never happened.”

Another rule is that you don’t have to disclose anything that a reasonably prudent person would have been able to find out for themselves – we call it something that is “patent” as opposed to “latent.” So if a buyer complains, “Hey, you didn’t tell me that the master bedroom is covered with blood spatter,” the seller is free to say, “Nope. I thought you would notice that when you walked through.”

Those contracts rules work pretty well for poker. The TDA rules on revealing the size of your chip stack provide a good example. The first relevant rule is Rule 24A: Cards & Chips Kept Visible, Countable

Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of an opponent’s chip count; thus chips should be kept in countable stacks. The TDA recommends clean stacks of 20 chips each as a standard. Higher denomination chips must be visible and identifiable at all times.

This rule is drafted in terms of what players are “entitled to,” that is, what rights they have. But a right is the flip side of an obligation. So it would be more helpful to state the obligation. Some players think this rule requires a player to tell another player how many chips he has, but it does not address that topic — this rule addresses what a player sees. It seems to me that if there is an obligation to do it, the rule should be stated in terms of what players “must” do rather than what players “should” do.

The other applicable rule is Rule 55: Count of Opponent’s Chip Stack

Players are entitled to a reasonable estimation of opponents’ chip stacks (Rule 24). A player may only request a more precise count if the action is on him and he faces an all-in bet. The all-in player is not required to count; on request, the dealer or floor will count it. Accepted action applies (See Rule 49). The visible and countable chip stack rule (Rule 24) greatly helps accuracy in counting.

As we have interpreted it, Rule 24 provides that players must keep chips visible in countable stacks. Rule 55 addresses when a player can request a more precise count than he can obtain by viewing the opponent’s chips. The answer seems to be: only when the opponent is all-in. It is often helpful to know an opponent’s stack size when the opponent makes a bet. Nevertheless, the rule seems to be that in that case, the opponent does not have to answer the question. He does, however, have to comply with Rule 24, so the player asking for a count from the bettor who makes less than an all-in bet is really saying, “I can’t get a reasonable estimate by looking at your chips.” If that is the case, then the bettor must comply with Rule 24 by making it easier for the other player to make a visible reasonable estimate, but does not have to respond verbally.

What if you ask for a count of an all-in, and the bettor gives you incorrect information? This problem is addressed in Rule 49: Accepted Action

Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by others. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from a dealer or player, then pushes out that amount, the caller has accepted the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.

Here, there is a presumption that the caller accepts the full correct action, but the presumption may be rebutted. For example, Player A goes all-in. Player B asks, “How many chips is that?” Player A says, “About 50,000.” Player B says, “I call.” Player A then says, “Oops, it is actually about 500,000.” The presumption is that player B has called, but that presumption may be rebutted by the Tournament Director in his discretion. This is a good example of where the TD may act “in the best interests of the game” in accordance with Rule 1.

What if you make a misrepresentation at showdown, like saying, “I have a flush,” when in fact you don’t? Such a statement might induce the winning player to muck his hand. Rule 12 states: Declarations. Cards Speak at Showdown

Cards speak to determine the winner. Verbal declarations of hand value are not binding at showdown but deliberately miscalling a hand may be penalized. Any player in the hand or not, should speak up if he thinks a mistake is being made in reading hands or awarding the pot.

The use of “should” is appropriate in the third sentence, for players should speak up in the sense that they are encouraged to do it, but there is no obligation to do it. But “must” should be used in the second sentence instead of “may” to indicate that there is an obligation not to miscall a hand, which is followed by the implication of a consequence for not doing it.

Note that I have conveniently omitted the issue of disclosing the contents of your hand during play, which is a whole ‘nuther ball of wax. Other than that, both in contracts and in poker, you are generally free to keep your mouth shut. But when you do speak, speak the truth. ♠

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].