Ain't Misbehavin': When Does Offensive Language and Behavior Cross the Line?

I was at a major poker tournament recently when a player was penalized for being "out of line." I observed the so-called infraction and confronted the tournament official later that same day with my concerns about his reasoning and decision. Our discussion evolved into an intense debate about what exactly constitutes appropriate versus inappropriate language and behavior in a poker tournament. One of the repercussions of our debate is this set of poll questions on player behavior.

In this column, I utilize two specific individuals for the sole purpose of introducing the arguments on "questionable" player language and behavior. Furthermore, I use the players' real names for two reasons. First, I am on good terms with both of these players and know they will take no offense to being mentioned as the subject of an open debate in Card Player . Second, these players are well-known by most people in the poker community, which allows many readers to fully comprehend some of the types of behavior we are discussing and debating in this survey.

In the first instance, Avner Levy was the guilty party. For those who don't know him, Levy is a colorful but highly temperamental former tennis pro turned tournament player who has enjoyed mixed success in recent years. Levy's trademark phrase is, "Come to Pappa!" which he screams at the top of his lungs when he wins a big pot. Levy's loud vocal antics rub some of his opponents the wrong way, and have been described as "unsportsmanlike" – at least according to Dave Lamb, a veteran tournament director who gave Levy a 10-minute penalty in the middle of a recent event. The question here, depicted by Levy, is: What exactly are the rules governing player behavior when it comes to celebrating or vocalizing a victory?

The second depiction of controversial player behavior will be illustrated by longtime tournament pro Mike Laing. Unlike Levy, Laing doesn't celebrate much or get overly emotional at the poker table. Laing's primary affront is the fact that he won't keep his mouth shut when he's sitting in a game or playing in a tournament. He chatters constantly, and will be the first to admit it. This might not seem like an infraction (and isn't) according to most tournament rules. Nevertheless, sitting next to Laing for several hours at a time in a tournament while trying to concentrate is a sure-fire recipe for a major headache, or a nervous breakdown.

The reason why Levy and Laing were selected as the poster boys for controversial player language/behavior is to reveal that many questions will arise when we try to define what is appropriate at the poker table versus what deserves to be prohibited and penalized.

There will be some points of near-universal agreement. We can probably all agree that certain bad language and out-of-control behavior should be banned in poker rooms. But where does bad behavior cross the line? Furthermore, when that line is crossed – what is the appropriate punishment for the crime? This, and other related issues, will be the focus of the following poll questions.

Question 1: Is it ever appropriate to use a dirty, four-letter word when sitting at a poker table in a public cardroom?

Yes - Like it or not, most people in our society have become indifferent to bad language. It's in our movies, and is even on television. It's a part of life and a spontaneous part of the game, at times. There's nothing inherently wrong with uttering an expletive after you've lost a huge pot when someone drew out on you by hitting a two-outer. People accept (and perhaps even expect) a certain amount of risqué behavior when they enter a casino or a poker room.

No - If a bad word potentially makes any player at the table feel uncomfortable, it is never appropriate. Since we never know precisely who might find such words objectionable, and there is a certain degree of intimidation against protest, the fair course of action is to have strict rules in place against all bad language. Poker is moving away from the outdated image of filthy language being tolerated at the table and we should continue to improve conditions for all players.

Question 2: Should those who violate rules on bad language be given a warning first before punishment is given?

Yes - It's only fair to warn a player first before punishing him. Many players may not know that some words are banned. In addition, there are even larger questions about which words are objectionable. Do we include "damn," and other less-severe words in our censure? Who exactly determines just what is appropriate? Might there be one set of words for Atlantic City and another set of rules for Davenport , Iowa ? This is the problem with language codes at the poker table. They aren't enforceable.

No - If a "zero-tolerance" policy on bad language was adopted everywhere, incidents of this kind would be eliminated almost overnight. The only way to send a clear message to all players is to post signs inside all cardrooms that offensive language will not be tolerated and will result in discipline of the guilty parties.

Question 3: In the Avner Levy case described above, is it appropriate for a player to holler and scream loudly, particularly when he wins a key pot?

Yes - We are all individuals. We react differently to extraordinary events. In sports, some football players spike the ball when they cross the goal line and score a touchdown, and others simply hand the ball to the referee. Similarly, in poker, some excitable players show genuine enthusiasm when they win a big pot, while others very quietly rake in the chips. Paying an entry fee entitles that player to cheer, clap, pump his fist into the air, or do anything else that exhibits his enthusiasm. As long as profanity is not used, vocal celebrations are fine.

No - Screaming and hollering is unsportsmanlike and should not be permitted. The behavior may be "natural" to some, but it is highly offensive to the player who has lost the pot and who may have been eliminated. It's annoying, and no player should ever be forced to endure such antics. Exception: the last hand of a final table. Loud cheering is to be expected at that point, and no one would take offense to someone who is excited for having won a poker tournament.

Question 4: In the Mike Laing case described above, is it appropriate for a player to talk as much as he wants (assuming he does not talk while others are involved in a pot)?

Yes - Some players like to chatter while playing poker. Others prefer to remain quiet. The problem with trying to enforce codes of conduct on player behavior, and particularly on talking, is the large so-called "gray area." No one really knows where to draw the line on exactly what is the correct volume and tone of a conversation versus what is truly annoying and objectionable.

No - Sitting next to a chatterbox can be torturous. No player should be consistently subjected to annoying, irrelevant conversation while playing poker. While all players do have rights, those rights end when it comes to disturbing others. Because poker requires that players sit in very close proximity, we must have some rules that prohibit the actions of some players who may be infringing on the rights of others. That includes loud, unnecessary talking.

Question 5: Is it appropriate for a player to "bait" an opponent at the poker table – that is, to make taunting remarks and use other derisive tactics?

Yes - Poker is not just a game of cards. It's a game of people and psychology. It is not only appropriate for players to use derisive measures against each other, it makes the game much more fun and interesting to play. The vast majority of table banter is good-natured and causes no problems. To outlaw this part of the game would be wrong. Poker is not chess. Players should be permitted to use their personality just as much as their poker skills.

No - Baiting and taunting has no place at the poker table. It turns some people off and causes bad feelings. It may be a part of the game for some players, but many others do not know how to react to ridicule. This gives poker a bad image to outsiders and newcomers and is bad for the game.

Question 6: Europeans tend to have much stricter rules on issues involving player behavior and talking. Most games in Europe have little or no conversation while a hand is being played. Would you like to see the same thing happen in the United States?

Yes - There should be strict rules against talking while a hand is actually in progress. This is even more important as it applies to players who are not involved in the hand . All players should have respect for the hand that is in progress, and give everyone at the table an opportunity to make clear decisions without distracting conversations and mindless chatter.

No - Poker is a social game. Most players are just as interested in talking and socializing at the table as playing poker. If two players wish to quietly engage in a conversation while a hand is being played – and they are not talking loudly enough to bother the other players – they should be allowed to talk.

Question 7: Should players be allowed to use headphones (listen to music) when playing in live games?

Yes - One of the best ways to block out table chatter and other annoying sounds is to listen to music through headphones when playing at the poker table. Many players, including pros, opt to use headphones for this reason, and to entertain themselves during long stretches spent in cardrooms.

No - Headphones are anti-social and have no place at the poker table. All players should be subject to the same sights, sounds, and potential distractions of the game.

Question 8: Should players be allowed to use headphones (listen to music) when playing in tournaments?

Yes - See the reasons above.

No - See the reasons above.

Question 9: At the present time, do you believe the degree of enforcement on player misbehavior is about right or needs to be more strict?

It's about right - Tremendous progress has been made within the past 10 years on problems involving player behavior. In fact, it's rarely a problem anymore in most cardrooms or at major tournaments. This proves that cardroom managers and tournament directors have exercised just about the right degree of enforcement on these issues. Let's keep things pretty much as they are now, because the current system is working.

Enforcement needs to be more strict - There is still a long way to go if we really want to eliminate bad language and behavior. While some progress clearly has been made, there are areas where player language and behavior is still offensive. The only way to combat these infractions is to make punishment more severe. We need to start getting rid of offensive players. Poker does not need them, and we'll attract even more players to the game if we get rid of the "bad apples."

Question 10: Do you agree with adopting a more relaxed attitude regarding player behavior?

Yes - The rules and restrictions against language and behavior have gone too far. Can you imagine what would happen if casinos were to try and enforce similar codes of conduct for gamblers at craps tables? Imagine not being allowed to scream, yell, or show disgust when the dice are being rolled in the pit. That would be an outrage. Face the facts, emotion is a natural by-product of most forms of gambling, including poker. Some people want to change poker into something it is not. Poker remains the final frontier of individualism. Trying to make everyone into a politically correct robot is just as offensive to some as those who are supposedly trying to "clean up" the game for the better.

No - Rules have not gone too far – to the contrary. Now, people of any age, sex, or background can enter a poker room and are unlikely to be offended by what they see and hear. It's much more likely for offensive behavior to be seen out on the street than inside a modern poker room. That's a testament to the success of changes in player attitudes and behavior.

Question 11: From a spectator point of view, would you prefer to see a final table comprised of players like Avner Levy and Mike Laing (meant to denote players who are demonstrative and excitable) or players like Howard Lederer and Phil Ivey (meant to denote players who are deep-thinkers, quiet, and rarely show emotion)?

Levy and Laing

Lederer and Ivey

Question 12: If forced to choose one extreme versus the other – if you were playing in your average poker game, would you prefer a table full of talkers or a completely silent table?

Talkers

Silence

Please visit CardPlayer.com to vote on the question of the day. The poll will run March 3-14.

Writer's note: Special thanks to Avner Levy and Mike Laing for allowing their actions to be scrutinized, and to Dave Lamb for his passion and dedication to improving the game of poker.

What do you think? You are encouraged to visit www.cardplayer.com, where you can register your votes. You also may e-mail your comments directly to: [email protected] . Comments may be printed in a follow-up column along with the poll results. Due to space constraints, please limit your comments to no more than 300 words. All comments received may be edited for content.