Contracts and Poker: Moving To A New Table

The button is in seat 3. The player in seat 5 is knocked out in the play of that hand. The button moves to seat 4. A player from a broken table is moved to seat 5, which is now the small blind. Does the player in seat 5 get a hand? Almost invariably, the dealer says, “You have to wait one hand.” Sometimes the tournament director (TD) is called over, and he usually affirms the ruling. Of course, the player is not going to object, because the player is happy not to have to post a blind. But is that the right ruling?

TDA Rule 9, which addresses when a player who is new to the table should be dealt a hand, is inconsistently enforced. The rule addresses “players from a broken table,” which seems overly restrictive since the rule equally addresses players who have just joined the game and players who are moved to balance tables. In any event, the rule states: “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in except between the small blind and button.”

The first part of this rule seems simple in its application: “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in.” A player who is moved often objects to having to post the small blind or big blind, but the rule makes clear that they indeed have an obligation to do so. Other players may object to the new player getting the button without having paid his dues, but again the rule makes clear that they have a right to do so.

The exception to the rule is more problematic: “except between the small blind and button.” The word between is susceptible to multiple interpretations. 1) The alternative between: “You have a choice between seat 4 and seat 6.” You can pick either one, but you can’t pick seat 5. 2) The exclusive between: “Take the seat between seat 4 and seat 6.” This must mean seat 5. 3) The inclusive between: “Pick any seat between seat 4 and seat 6.” Since “pick a number between 1 and 10” means you can pick either 1 or 10, this must mean seat 4, seat 5, or seat 6.

Which use of between is found in the exception? Read literally, if we go clockwise around the table from the small blind to the button, “between the small blind and button” would exclude all the seats except for those two, so it must mean “between the button and the small blind.” If this meant the alternative or the inclusive between, then the button and the small blind don’t get a hand. But that interpretation would contradict the first part of the rule, which tells us that the button and the small blind generally do get a hand. So it must be the exclusive between, and the exception applies to the rare case when a player assumes a seat with the button on one side and the small blind on the other, so that he is “between” them.

To resolve a question of interpretation, it can help to ask the reason for the rule. The basic rule seems to be a rule of convenience – the rule has to be one thing or the other. The drafters of the rule took the simple approach — when a player takes a seat, the player has all the rights and obligations of that seat. That is the part players object to, for they would rather not be seated in the blinds. But the drafters of the rule did not choose that alternative, and as a result dealers and TDs must put up with players whining. To make its application easier, perhaps the rule could be worded more clearly: “A player moved to a seat at a new table always gets a hand, except when the player is moved to a seat between the button and the small blind.” When the TD is called over by the protesting player, she can simply ask, “Are you seated between the button and the small blind? No? Then you get a hand.”

Incidentally, Rule 9 advises us to “See Illustration Addendum.” The Addendum is a supplement to the TDA Rules that helps to make rules like this one clear through illustrations. Unfortunately, the Addendum only addresses the part of Rule 9 that deals with the procedure for assigning seats and does not address this more confusing part of the rule. TDA take note – a picture can be worth a thousand words. Here are some illustrations, starting with the situation addressed in my introductory hypothetical.

The button is in seat 3. The player in seat 5 is knocked out in the play of that hand. The button moves to seat 4. A player is moved to seat 5, which is now the small blind. Does the player in seat 5 get a hand? “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in except between the small blind and button.” In this hypothetical, they got the small blind and the exception does not apply, so they should be dealt in.

The button is in seat 3. The player in seat 6 is knocked out in the play of that hand. The button moves to seat 4. A player is moved to seat 6, which is now the big blind. Does the player in seat 6 get a hand? “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in except between the small blind and button.” In this hypothetical, they got the big blind and the exception does not apply, so they should be dealt in.

The button is in seat 3. The player in seat 4 is knocked out in the play of that hand. The button moves to seat 4. A player is moved to seat 4, which is now the button. Does the player in seat 4 get a hand? “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in except between the small blind and button.” In this hypothetical, they got the button and the exception does not apply, so they should be dealt in.

The button is in seat 3. Seat 4 has the small blind, seat 5 is empty, and seat 6 has the big blind. After the play of that hand, a player is moved to seat 5. The button is in seat 4. Seat 6 is the small blind. Does the player in seat 5 get a hand? “They can get any seat including small or big blind or the button and be dealt in except between the small blind and button.” Here, the exception applies because they are in the seat between the small blind and the button, so they don’t get a hand.

A recent discussion on the TDA Discussion Board posits a situation that does not seem to be within the scope of Rule 9. The button is in seat 1. Seat 2 is the small blind. Seats 3 and 4 are empty. Seat 5 is the big blind. The player in seat 5 is knocked out, and new players occupy seats 3 and 4. The button moves to seat 2, but who gets the blinds? Opinion seems torn between 1) seats 3 and 4 post the small blind and big blind, and 2) there is no small blind and seat 6 posts the big blind. The problem comes down to where the small blind should be. If it moves to seat 3, which is the next seat that would get it because it is the first seat after the button, then seat 4 gets the big blind. But if it moves to seat 5, which just had the big blind and therefore would get it if there were a player in it, then seats 3 and 4 are between the button and this hypothetical small blind (if we can stretch the exception to cover hypothetical small blinds), so they don’t get hands and seat 6 posts the big blind.

Unfortunately, there is no TDA rule on movement of the button and blinds. The only applicable rule, Rule 32, states: “Dead Button. Tournament play will use a dead button.” That is not helpful since it does not define “dead button,” but it generally means that the button can be placed in front of an empty seat. Each player gets, in order, the big blind, then the small blind, then the button. A player should not get any of those twice in an orbit, but, as seen in my discussion of Rule 9, a player might get fewer than all three. However, in this particular situation, no player is penalized by either of these alternative interpretations, so there is somethng to be said for both views. I favor the second interpretation only because it doesn’t seem logical for the blinds to move backwards. If the big blind was in seat 5 on one hand, it troubles me to put it in seat 4 on the next hand.

If I am wrong about the meaning of Rule 9, please let me know. If I am right, dealers and floor, please start implementing it. And in any event, TDA, please revise it and illustrate it. ♠

Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga University School of Law. He can be reached at [email protected].