===========================
So, as I had promised last issue, I'll try to use these columns to explain some rules of poker tournaments which interpretation still varies greatly from person to person or from event to event, thus generating some confusion between management and participants. For this reason, on this edition will give you an example that has recently caused a lot of doubt in some tournaments in Brazil. This situation involves one player throwing chips on the table, unaware that the bet was raised before him.
For example, imagine that in a tournament, blinds are 1000-2000. The first to act decides to call for 2000, the second also called. The third player moves all-in to a total of 19,500 chips. Then, the fourth participant, unaware of the action that takes place at the table, places ahead five one-thousand chips, clearly signifying a raise to 5,000. The dealer then draws their attention saying the current bet is 19,500 chips. And now?
I'll tell you what is the conduct that the BSOP and other tournaments that we run follow and explain why.
In the situation described the careless player would be forced to call the bet of 19,500, because he has thrown in multiple chips in a value less of 50% of a minimum raise, and therefore shoulf complete the value of the last bet. If he had said the word "raise" before putting the chips in the pot he would, then, have to put in a minimum raise, i.e. a total of 37,000 chips.
Other tournaments in the world follow different patterns. Some very famous series like the WSOP or WPT will give the unobservant player the option: complete value of the previous bet (in this case, 19,500) or to fold, but lose the chips already placed on the table, that is, losing 5,000 and fold the hand.
Our staff of floor and tournament directors hold regular meetings to discuss what goes well and what needs to be improved in tournaments, rules and procedures, among other things during the dayly operations of a tournament. We always have in mind a few basic assumptions when deciding on a rule or a trend of decision:
1. Basis of the rule or decision – where this rule derives from and what events use that rule to what extent;
2. Justice, fairness and maintenance of equality of the competitive conditions;
3. Influence on the outcome of the game/hand;
4. Future impacts of a decision.
In the situation of our example, the analysis we've done has convinced us that we should oppose the "default" followed by many renowned tournaments. And here I will explain point by point how we got this conclusion:
1 - BASIS
Let’s consider that the action of a player, on his own turn to act, commits him to that movement. Also knowing that an action can be either verbal or through gestures common in poker, like the gentle tap on the table if he checks or putting chips into the pot to make a bet.
This leads us to conclude that placing chips in the pot, in your own turn, commits you to that action; i.e. if a player bet 1,000 chips, and you then quietly puts in the pot the same value, your movement is clearly and undoubtedly a call.
Likewise, if a next player on his own turn, quietly moves forward six 1000 chips, there is no doubt that he is symbolizing an increase of the bet to 6,000 and must maintain this commitment.
Thus, in their own time to act, if a player places chips ahead while distracted, he must commit to action then follow the rules of chip placement to determine if it is a raise or call.
2 - EQUALITY
There are thousands of possible situations in a game of poker, and tournament rules can not cover them all. So we let to the tournament directors for a good load of weight in decisions, assessing the situation with common sense as it is presented.
In this specific case, we understand that giving the player the option does not seem fair to the other participants of the tournament. See, the player took a careless attitude without checking what was happening and that will often hurt you.
When we offer the option of the player fold or call, we have a complacent, condescending and lenient attitude, which seems to go against most of the postures used in other decisions, that is, we are not giving the other tournament players the option of making mistakes and back with minimal damage to their survival.
For this reason we chose not to give the player option.
3 - INFLUENCE ON OUTCOME
Poker is a sport of aggressive actions and incomplete information. Whenever a participant acts without realizing what is happening around him, he is giving huge advantage to the other participants, who have every right to exploit this advantage to its fullest, just like a professional with years of career will explore a newcomer to the tables.
So, to give the option to fold to the player influences the outcome by giving a second chance to the inattentive player to survive. Now, if every time we get distracted, we have a second chance, the game would be much easier and pathetic, in my opinion.
It is yet another reason why we do not like to give the option of the players fold.
4 - FUTURE IMPACTS
If the tournament directors start opening precedents where the participant can choose their destiny in face of a risk at their survival in the competition, in our point of view, players will begin to claim that they should be given options in all kinds of different situations, which would not be good either for the progress of the tournament nor the maintenance of equal conditions of competition.
Furthermore, it could then be created a gap into which the player could give a malicious "undercall" of the previous bet to extract information or a tell of one of their opponents, always with the excuse that he would not have seen the previous action.
In conclusion, these are the arguments that led us to adopt this posture. Tournament directors around the world discuss this very issue and TDA (Tournament Directors Association) itself does not speak in unison in this case, however, this is one of the points to be discussed at the next meeting of the tournament directors of TDA, which is held biennially in Las Vegas. Today the "regulation" of the TDA is more a compilation of general guidelines to be followed by tournament organizers.
This year we will try to embark on a more regulatory stance for the sport, producing more concise and well explained rules so that poker tournaments around the world may follow a pattern of competition in the same way that football has a regulation, and you are able to play the same sport in China, Italy or Brazil.