Contracts and Poker: Berating A Player

A player attempts a three-barrel bluff, but is snapped off by the intended victim, who calls the bluffer’s bet. The bluffer goes on a rant, sometimes blaming himself, but mostly blaming the other player for his terrible play. Should the Tournament Director impose a penalty on the player?

Contracts and poker are both activities in which autonomous players attempt to increase their wealth by making advantageous moves. Ironically, both also require the players to cooperate with others in order to achieve these objectives. There are therefore limits on how far one can go in taking advantage of others and norms for how the cooperative environment is to be maintained. We might call the former rules of play and the latter rules of etiquette. A player who violates the rules of etiquette undermines the cooperative aspect of the game and may discourage players from participating.

The World Series of Poker has a number of rules of etiquette including the following:

40.c. All Participants are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every table and throughout the WSOP area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous — or is abusive in any way – is encouraged to immediately contact a WSOP Tournament official. Participants who violate this rule are subject to penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 41, 42, 113, and/or 114.

46. Rio prohibits the use of obscene or foul language in any public area of the casino at any time. Any Participant who uses such language or makes a foul, profane, obscene or vulgar statement, or speaks abusively or in an intimidating manner to another Participant, a dealer or a WSOP Tournament staff member, will be penalized. These penalties will be levied based on Rules 40, 113, and 114.

47. Any Participant who taunts another Participant through theatrics or gestures or engages in any form of inappropriate behavior intended to disrupt other Participants in an Event will be subject to penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 113, and 114.

48. Participant or staff abuse will not be tolerated. A Participant will incur a penalty up to and including disqualification for any abuse towards another Participant or staff member, and the Participant could be asked to leave the property. Repeated etiquette violations, including, but not limited to, touching another Participant’s cards or chips, body, or clothing, delay of game and excessive chatter will result in penalties.

Let’s see how these rules apply to our situation. This situation is, of course, not hypothetical, but actually happened on day 2C of this year’s main event. The ranter was – no big surprise – Phil Hellmuth.

Reaction among the commentators ran the gamut, and unfortunately their chatter prevented us from hearing much of what Hellmuth was saying. Maria Ho shrugged it off as “Phil being Phil,” and suggested that the appropriate response was to not engage him. Lon McEachern seemed bemused, but stuck to reporting the facts, including that the language was sometimes getting “salty.” Norman Chad was outraged, and thought Hellmuth should get a penalty.

In the event, nothing happened. Who could have done something about it? The player against whom the tirade was directed could have complained about being abused. I can appreciate him maintaining his silence, however. Having just doubled up another player, it would seem like overkill to further punish that player. The dealer could have warned Hellmuth that he was out of line or could have called the floor. But as explained in a previous column, even though they are on the front line of spotting rules violations, dealers have few responsibilities to enforce the rules. Furthermore, a dealer might not want to invite Hellmuth’s wrath.

Ultimately, I think it is the responsibility of the other players at the table to report the situation to the floor. WSOP Rule 40.c. states: “Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous — or is abusive in any way – is encouraged to immediately contact a WSOP Tournament official.” If the player was reluctant to speak up in front of other players, he could leave the table to find a tournament official and say, “The player in Seat 5 is abusing another player and the dealer isn’t doing anything about it.”

Once the official arrives, and the dealer explains the situation, the floor’s problem is to determine whether the behavior rises to the level of abuse that should result in a penalty. This determination is of course subjective, but there are objective factors for the floor to consider, including:

• Did the person use foul language? This is in itself prohibited by Rule 46.
• Did the person taunt the other player, such as by deriding his or her abilities? This is in itself prohibited by Rule 47.
• Did the tirade go on for a long time? “Excessive chatter” is in itself prohibited by
  Rule 48.

It appears to me that all of these factors were present in this situation and, had the floor been called, a penalty would have been appropriate. Note that under Rule 113, a “verbal warning” is a penalty, and may have been sufficient to resolve the situation.
Incidentally, during a break in the action, Hellmuth could be seen on the phone, sharing the situation with his wife. Since she is both his spouse and a psychiatrist, one can only guess what her response was. Some possibilities are:

1. “Yes, dear. It is terrible what they do to you.”
2. “How did that make you feel?”
3. “Have you considered seeking professional help?”
4. “Shut up and take it like a man!”

Players, don’t hesitate to speak up if you see inappropriate behavior at the table. Putting an end to the behavior will enhance an important aspect of the game. ♠

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