Author Topic: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??  (Read 9969 times)

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« on: November 21, 2013, 10:42:47 AM »
The TDA received the following interesting question on the subject of "gross misunderstandings". It is posted here with the Board response. Please feel free to discuss / comment:

Start question ***********************
From: name withheld
Subject: Gross Misunderstanding

Message Body:
Hello, just a quick question.

At what stage and why was the gross misunderstanding rule removed from the TDA rules?

Thanks in advance.

End question ************************  Board response below:

Hi [name withheld]

Please be more specific as to what rule you're referring to. Neither the 2007, 2009, 2011, or 2013 TDA rules contain the term "gross misunderstanding".

Here's red-line changes of 2011 over 2009:
http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Poker_TDA_Rules_2011_Version_1.0_Handout_docx_redline_changes.pdf

Here's red-lines of 2013 over 2011:
http://www.pokertda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Poker_TDA_Rules_2013_Version_1.1_Final_handout_PDF_redlines_from_2011_Rules.pdf

Here are the 2007 Rules:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/02/tournament-directors-association-new-poker-rules.htm

Since gross misunderstandings usually take the form of undercalls, you may find the following TDA Rules apply directly or indirectly to your question:

2013 Rule 2 Player Responsibilities
Rule 37: Verbal Bets / Act in Turn / Undercalls
Rule 46: Accepted Action

******************* End


K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2013, 11:50:42 AM »
Gross misunderstanding is RROP language.  By the book, I don't think the principle was ever formally adopted in TDA rules. Off book, situations where there has been what appears to be a gross understanding of a wager can sometimes be reasonable justification to provide relief under Rule 1.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2013, 08:25:01 AM »
I agree there is no gross misunderstanding rule in the TDA. Player's beware!

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2013, 09:57:05 AM »
Everyone: 

Please refer to the following sentence in the Introduction paragraph of the TDA Rules.

"Poker TDA rules supplement the rules of this house."

I call your attention to the word supplement.  In other words, the TDA rules are ("in addition to" or "assist" or "something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.") the house rules.

If the word were supplant then the TDA rules would ("supersede and replace.") the house rules. 

This is a distinction that the TDA wanted to make perfectly clear hence the purpose of the above sentence in the Introduction.

So the solution, as I see it, is very simple, write a house rule that covers "gross misunderstanding" and the problem is solved.

That said, it is up to the individual player to learn what the "house rules" are for the venue.  We all know, or at least we should know that house rule vary substantially from one house to another. 

Chet

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2013, 10:51:47 AM »
Everyone:  

Please refer to the following sentence in the Introduction paragraph of the TDA Rules.

"Poker TDA rules supplement the rules of this house."

I call your attention to the word supplement.  In other words, the TDA rules are ("in addition to" or "assist" or "something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.") the house rules.


Chet: nice catch and my nomination for "post of the month"...

BTW, there was some serious discussion prior to Summit VI of perhaps making one specific body of conventional poker rules (such as RRoP) the "official go-to conventional rules" for the TDA... couldn't get enough agreement on that one.

Then Dave Lamb suggested that a TDA Recommended Procedure be considered that each house clearly indicate what set of conventional rules, if any, the house uses to resolve "conventional" situations that aren't covered in any published house rules...  that just wasn't brought up due to the overwhelming volume of other issues covered at Summit VI, but it might make an excellent topic for Summit VII !

See new rule suggestion thread on that topic here:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=958.msg8534#msg8534

There are just so many outlier situations that can arise that are beyond the scope of a typical one or two page set of house rules, or the TDA rules... or are so ingrained in common poker convention that they don't have to be published, but would be advisable to have available as reference. Food for thought.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 02:49:55 PM by MikeB »

MPaver

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2013, 04:06:23 PM »
Thanks Guys, I asked the question initially.

I could only assume that this rule was not adopted by the TDA because it did not want players too see it in writing and use it as a form of collecting information from players.

I have got one more question.

Wasn't the idea of the TDA formed in an attempt to standardize tournament rules?

My question is, if this was the reason that the TDA was formed, how come it consistently refers back to house rules which is the sole purpose that the TDA was formed to prevent. Personally, I love the idea of one set of rules for poker, just like Aussie football players are set to the same rules regardless of which venue they play at.

P.S not having a dig at the TDA rules here, just asking the question.

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2013, 10:14:18 PM »
Good question, MP.

First off, the TDA's work is not over... it's taken 6 Summits to get to this point, and yet there are still some areas of difference, for various reasons. And where those differences exist, the TDA would be remiss not to recognize them as house rules.

I would disagree that the TDA "consistently" refers to house rules... they are mentioned or implied in 8 of the 62 rules:

Rule 4: Electronic devices. It is just very difficult to have a standard for all the different devices out there, some venues allow headphones, some don't. Some allow tweeting at the table, some don't. Alot of this is market-specific and rather than trying to regulate it all, the TDA leaves everything beyond talking on the phone up to the house.

Rule 5: Language. The TDA at one time did have a specific rule on language (English plus the native language of the country), however foreign TDs complained that they couldn't always get enough dealers and floor staff who were native speakers so they needed flexibility on this.

Rule 14: Forward motion, mucking / betting lines, etc. Some houses use betting lines, some don't. Some use forward motion, some don't. The "default" position of the TDA is no betting line, and chips-released rather than forward motion. So house rules have to apply for those venues that use lines and/or motion.

Rule 18: Asking to See a Hand. As the subject of a recent thread on this question shows, there is still a wide range of opinion as to: A) when a request to see a hand will be honored, and when it won't; B) when cards shown by request are live, and when they're dead. The position that the entire association agrees to is that the only players who can ask to see a non-tabled hand are those who have either tabled their hand or still retain it face down. But whether the request is granted, and whether the cards are live, are still matters of house policy.

Rule 25: Deck changes on dealer push or level changes. This is a labor and management issue, so each house has to decide how frequently it does deck changes (and dealer changes) based on the specific labor conditions at that venue.

Rule 34: There are no standard agreed-upon TDA lowball rules, so house rules apply there.

Rule 38-B: Some houses kill a skipped hand if substantial action out of turn occurs, while others will limit the player to non-aggressive action. Until and unless agreement is reached on this we have to accept the differing views.

Rule 45: Allowable # raises when tourney is down to 2 players: some houses lift the limit, while others keep it, so those rules apply.

*************************************************
Hope this helps and welcome to the forum.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2013, 10:37:10 PM »
My question is, if this was the reason that the TDA was formed, how come it consistently refers back to house rules which is the sole purpose that the TDA was formed to prevent. Personally, I love the idea of one set of rules for poker, just like Aussie football players are set to the same rules regardless of which venue they play at.

I also would like to see one unified set of rules. However, so many TDs are hard-ass, A-type personality, control freaks, that it's no surprise that getting everyone to agree on one set of rules is probably next to impossible! ;D

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2013, 07:15:45 AM »
Ken:

I won't disagree that many TD's are "hard-ass", but I don't think that is the major reason making development/acceptance of a "standard set of rules" so difficult.  I think it is the historical, ingrained differences from one region/country/continent to another that are almost part of the local culture that is a major cause.

In some cases these differences are ingrained in the players, in others in the houses, in others in the local legal system and on and on and on, including the "hard-ass" TD's.   ;D 

The "Mission" ie. "Goal" of the TDA, as I understand it, is to minimize these differences and hopefully come up with a standard set of rules.  That is a job that will probably continue for as long as there are players in the game.

Chet

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Is there a TDA Gross Misunderstanding Rule ??
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2013, 10:49:29 AM »
My question is, if this was the reason that the TDA was formed, how come it consistently refers back to house rules which is the sole purpose that the TDA was formed to prevent. Personally, I love the idea of one set of rules for poker, just like Aussie football players are set to the same rules regardless of which venue they play at.

At the TDA Summit, proposed rules are brought up and voted on.  Attendees are allowed to speak up and provide points in favor or against the proposal. In order for the proposal to go through, the vast majority must agree.

The TDA rules that Mike listed were ones that, for the reasons that Mike, K-Lo (lol!), and Chet pointed out, could not be settled as an absolute...so house rules may apply needed to be added.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter