I recently posted about an incident in which a player slammed his cards on the table so hard that one bounced off (http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/12/tropicana-poker-room-with-no-rules.html). By the house rules, his hand should have been dead. I had thought this was essentially a universal rule (a view reinforced by a subsequent story from a long-time poker room employee of my acquaintance; see http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/12/card-on-floor-sad-but-true-story.html), but I learned from readers' comments that this is not so. One pointed out that the widely used Robert's Rules explicitly said that dropped cards remained live, which I hadn't noticed.
I sent the following email to Bob Ciaffone, author of Robert's Rules:
Last night I wrote a post that included a story about a player's card flying off the table when he slammed his hole cards down too forcefully. I opined that the hand should have been declared dead. I cited Roy Cooke’s rulebook, in addition to observing that this has been the house rule everywhere that I have seen such an occurrence.
A commenter wrote to point out a fact that I had overlooked—-that your “Robert’s Rules” prescribe a different outcome. Specifically, in chapter 3, under “irregularities,” you write, “14. If you drop a card on the floor out of your hand, you must still play that card.”
I don’t find anything in the TDA rules or Lou Krieger’s rulebook on this point, nor in the Paymar/Harris/Malmouth “Professional Poker Dealer’s Handbook.”
I’m curious why you choose to recommend that the hand still be live after a card goes to the floor. I don’t know that killing such a hand is absolutely universal, but it certainly seems to be the prevailing rule in Vegas casinos. If you’d be so inclined, I’d be interested in your thoughts about how this situation should be handled.
He was kind enough to reply, and gave me permission to post what he had to say:
Let me answer your question with one of my own. Who drops cards on the floor?
1) Cheaters
2) Newcomers who are old and fumble
things.
If I were worried about (1) I would not use this rule. I have never seen it happen by someone other than (2)
Why be tough on such a person when you do not have to be? Bad enough the opponents know a card from the person's hand; that is enough to discourage deliberate use.
Posts
4 comments:
Keep in mind that if you are concerned about cheating the floor can immediately impound the deck to verify it is a proper deck.
The story your floorman told where he killed a players hand after he watched the guy accidentally drop it, just demonstrates the absurdity of a rule killing that hand. The floor person watched the entire episode and knew that no cheating had occurred yet he killed the hand anyway. To me that is so counter to any sense of fairness that I can't believe the floor would admit that in public.
"If I were worried about (1 - Cheaters) I would not use this rule. I have never seen it happen by someone other than (2 - Newcomers who are old and fumble things)"
So if someone sees "cheaters" dropping cards...then they can be accused cheating and the rule should only apply then?!?!? Also, this implies it is impossible for an old person to be a cheater, or for a cheater to act like a newcomer when fumbling their card off of the table.
If you're in a hand with another player who has the winning hand, but in their excitement drops a card off the floor, should he still win the hand?
If you call the floor and demand his hand be dead, aren't you shooting an angle?
The rules are to protect the stupid and innocent from angle shooters. When good players start using the rules against the stupid and innocent the game is no longer pure.
I disagree. The rules are there not only to protect the stupid and innocent from angle shooters, but to protect the integrity of the game. There are some things for which a zero-tolerance approach (i.e., the action triggers the penalty or consequence without regard to intention or knowledge of the rule or experience) is the only effective way to accomplish that, because we are so imperfect at diving people's thoughts and motives, and because cheaters can get so good at mimicking an apparently innocent or accidental action.
Now, reasonable people can differ as to whether a dropped card is the sort of problem for which a zero-tolerance approach is needed; notice, e.g., how Roy Cooke and Bob Ciaffone--both long-time professional players and writers of sets of rules--take opposite approaches.
But once a casino has decided to deploy the "death penalty" as a deterrent to cheating via dropped card, it is certainly not "angle shooting" to take a pot that an opponent loses by breaking this rule. It's just following the rules, even if they are harsh. It is not an unfair outcome, but rather the one that the rules say must occur (in places that use it, anyway).
Post a Comment