Contracts and Poker: Definitions

A player hustles back to her seat after the break. The dealer sees her by the 4-seat as he deals the last card, but she doesn’t make it to her seat, which is the 1-seat, until after the last card is dealt. Is her hand dead? Bonus question. Luckily for her, it may not matter that she was not at her seat, because the dealer discovers that he misdealt the cards. Does she get a hand on the redeal?

Definitions are important in contracts and in legislation. In a famous case, read by every first year law student, a wholesaler contracted with a distributor to sell “chicken.” The buyer, who was expecting frying chicken, was surprised that he got a shipment of stewing chicken. Did the buyer have a valid complaint? Since the parties had not clarified what they meant, the court looked to trade usage. But it seems that no one in the trade could agree on what chicken meant. So, the court found that the buyer, who had the burden of proving that his meaning of chicken was the accepted meaning, was out of luck.

The parties could have easily solved this problem with a definition: “In this agreement, chicken means ….” I note that when poker players make “prop bets,” they work very hard on defining exactly what the person can and can’t do, for they know that the person who has to perform will do everything they can to interpret the rules in their favor – just like a contract lawyer!

There are a number of definitions in the TDA Rules. Rule 36 is an odd rule because it is not a rule but a definition:

Substantial Action is either A) any 2 actions in turn, at least one of which puts chips in the pot (i.e. any 2 actions except 2 checks or 2 folds) or B) any combination of 3 actions in turn (check, bet, raise, call, fold).

This definition helps us understand the meaning of substantial action, but we have to look to other rules to see when it matters. For example, the term can be found in Rule 22, which appeared long before the term used in the rule was defined. My rule of thumb is that if a defined term only appears once, it can be defined when it is used. For example, Rule 28 states in its entirety: “Rabbit hunting (revealing cards that would have come if the hand had not ended) is not allowed.” But when defined terms appear in a number of places, it can be helpful to have a definition section at the beginning of the document that can be consulted by the reader who does not see the definition when reading the section.

Definitions don’t solve every problem, however. Some definitions are downright silly, like the one you frequently see that tell us that “he” means “she.” The TDA rules used to refer to a player as “him,” but I don’t think there was any doubt that the rules applied to all players. Kudos to the TDA for revising the Rules to make them gender-neutral, and for doing it without a silly definition.

There are a few occasions when the TDA does not define a term, assuming that we know what it means. For example, Rule 56 tells us that “Dealers will call string bets and raises,” but does not tell us what string bets and string raises are. Also, as discussed in a previous article in this series, when Rule 40.A tells us that “Bets are [made] … by pushing out chips,” it would be helpful to know what “pushing out chips” means, since there is a lot of controversy about what determines whether there has been a bet.

In some cases, a term is not defined because we don’t want to limit its meaning. Cheating, abuse, and disruptive behavior are examples of actions that are difficult to define because they cover such a wide range of situations. We have to trust the discretion of the floor to determine when they have occurred. The WSOP makes this very clear when it says in Rule 40.e:

Rio will penalize any act that, in the sole and absolute discretion of Rio, is inconsistent with these WSOP Official Tournament Rules or the best interests of the WSOP Tournament.

Sometimes a definition takes us by surprise because it is not quite what we expected. For example, TDA Rule 30, the rule applicable to our hypothetical player rushing to her seat, tells us that “To have a live hand, players must be at their seats when the last card is dealt to all players on the initial deal.” We might initially think that the player is out of luck because she was not at her seat. But the rule continues with a definition: “‘At your seat’ means in reach of your chair.” This arm’s length rule is pretty objective, and would mean that our player who has not gotten close enough is out of luck. In theory, that is. In practice, I think most dealers will give the cards to a player who was close to the table and the other players are unlikely to insist on strict enforcement.

As to the misdeal, the little-known Rule 35.C tells us:

In a misdeal, the re-deal is an exact re-play: the button does not move, no new players are seated, and limits stay the same. Cards are dealt to players on penalty or not at their seats for the original deal (Rule 30), then their hands are killed.
Therefore, if the player was not at her seat for the hand that was misdealt, she should not get a hand for the re-deal either.

So when you see a term used in a rule or contract, don’t assume you know what it means. Look for a definition. If you are the one drafting the contract, make sure to define terms where the meaning might later be disputed. ♠

Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Washington. He can be contacted at [email protected]. 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.