I happily read in Linda Johnson's Sept. 27 Card Player column that the Tournament Directors Association is gaining strength, and has come out with 23 new rules in the interest of standardization. As a person with a deep passion for good poker rules, and one who has constructed many rules sets, here are my comments about some of these rules:
"1. A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table." A sign of the times, and good courtesy.
"2. There may be no foreign chips on the table except for a maximum of one card cap." There are tournament situations in which knowing the exact number of chips in front of an opponent is vitally important. Letting a player cap his cards with a foreign chip can put a burden on a player trying to size up a situation, because he may not realize the card cap does not play. Card caps with foreign chips should not be allowed. If this is too strong for you, at least the card cap must be obviously different from any tournament chips in use (such as a chip that has been mounted in a setting).
"6. Players must keep their highest denomination chips visible at all times." I have been using this rule for nearly 20 years. It is nice to see others now endorsing it.
"10. All chips must be visibly displayed at all times. Players may not have tournament chips in their pockets at any time. A player who has chips in his pocket will forfeit the chips. The forfeited chips will be taken out of play from the tournament." Chips in tournaments at a casino are not necessarily the same value from tournament to tournament. You can get $500 worth of chips for $50 in one tournament, and $300 worth of chips for $100 in the next tournament in the same casino. Obviously, chips in the second tournament are worth twice as much as chips in the first. So, should you squirrel some chips away in the first tournament for the second tournament? Perhaps it's worth a try – unless that act is labeled for what it is: cheating. In addition to everything else, the removal of chips from a tournament makes it appear that the house might have pocketed some rebuy money. So, let's have a rule that calls removal of chips from a tournament a dishonest act. If the word "cheating" is too strong for you (it's not for me), it at least should be called unethical.
"11. Moving players: In flop games, players will be moved from the big blind to the worst position." I had to read this rule three times to absorb exactly what it means. Now that I (hopefully) understand it, I like it very much. No more dealing a card to each player to designate who has to move. Dealing a card slows up the game. It also can penalize a player severely, such as when he has taken the blinds and is due for the button, and has to wave adios. If you are due for the big blind and must move, this is not as big a bonus as it sounds, because moving to another game hurts your chances. You have gotten to know the players a little and now are forced to go into a strange neighborhood. You also may be leaving the Grapefruit League for the Majors. So, let's make this rule standard – and rewrite it so it has to be read only once to be understood.
"12. In limit events, there will be a limit to the number of raises allowed, even when heads up. (The limit will be the house limit.) However, once the tournament becomes heads up, the rule does not apply." The lifting of a limitation on raises when heads up is a hallowed poker rule, but is it appropriate for tournament play? The Tournament Directors Association does not think so, and I agree. It gives a player the opportunity to slough off chips to another player – or to play so poorly as to be accused of dumping. Surely, the preservation of an ethical atmosphere is more important than teaching a novice (at his great expense) what the nuts really looks like in a hand.
"16. Verbal declarations in turn are binding. Action out of turn may be binding." When should action out of turn be binding? Is it wise to leave this decision up to the tournament director? My opinion is that the rule should spell out when action out of turn is binding. Specifically, your action must stand unless someone in front of you who has not yet acted decides to call or raise. (This applies whether you have called or raised. Obviously, folds stand.)
"19. Players going from a broken table to fill-in seats assume the rights and responsibilities of the seat. They can get the big blind, the small blind, or the button. The only place they cannot get a hand is between the small blind and the button." As I mentioned before, a player who is forced to change tables suffers a liability. Therefore, I think getting the player into action immediately is both desirable and fair. He may get some extra hands cheaply, but that does not mean the net result of being selected to move has improved his tournament chances.
"20. Penalties available for use by the tournament director are verbal warnings, and 10, 20, 30, and 40 minutes away from the table, all of which may be used with discretion. These may be utilized up to and including disqualification. A player who is disqualified shall have his chips removed from play." I think giving the tournament director a lot of flexibility in enforcing the rules is a good idea, much better than giving him a choice between a 20-minute penalty and nothing.
"23. In no-limit or pot-limit, when raising, a player must either put the amount of the raise out in one motion or state his raise amount. If he states the amount, he may make more than one motion." This is the first time I have seen the rules used for bets extended to also cover raises. (I am surprised that the rule used for stopping string bets is not simply extended to cover raises as well, since that is what actually has been done here.) In the past, raises have been exempt from the "string-bet rule" because the amount of chips wagered when raising in big-bet poker is greater than can be put into the pot at one go. However, professional big-bet players fulfill the string-bet requirements anyway, just to protect themselves against a bad ruling. It is a good move by the TDA to ask all players to observe this rule, because no matter how many chips are wagered, a player can simply say what he is going to do before he does it. However, I would prefer to see the rule read, " … if he states the amount or makes it clear the wager is not complete before going back to his stack, he may make more than one motion." That way, he can start cutting chips while saying, "I'm going all in," or give the amount being wagered as he is cutting the chips.
My conclusion is that the Tournament Directors Association has once again done an excellent job of deciding which rules to use. This is another large step forward in poker rule standardization. (But how about taking another look at the wording for a few of these rules.)
Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's new book Middle Limit Holdem Poker, co-authored with Jim Brier, is available now (332 pages, $25 plus $5 shipping and handling). This work and his other poker books, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered through Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail thecoach@diamondcs.net or call (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free.