As you may know, in a number of recent threads here on the forum, there have been several TDs that expressed concerns that new Rule 41 (Accepted Action) is flawed.
Rule 41 currently states:
41: Accepted Action
Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, regardless of what is stated by the dealer or players. If a caller requests a count but receives incorrect information from the dealer or players, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. As with all tournament situations, Rule 1 may apply at TD’s discretion.The general principle underlying such a rule (which appears to have origins from WSOP rules) is well-taken: players are ultimately responsible for their own actions. In this regard, the rule on Accepted Action places all responsibility solely on the potential caller of a wager, to verify the correct amount of a bet.
The 'debate' over the TDA rule on Accepted Action has recently been rekindled in response to one of Matt Savage's "Situation of the Day" tweets, and it appears that player reactions to the rule are also mixed: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/65/mttc-live/rule-regarding-dealer-miscounts-1167855/. So not only do the TDs on this forum have differing opinions on whether or not the rule as currently written is good, but the range of player opinions is also broad.
Personally, i would like to see this Rule amended. I am not against the general principle that players need to be responsible for their actions, and this includes requiring potential callers to verify the amount of a bet before calling it. However, the question in my mind is, what can the potential caller do in order to fulfil that obligation to verify the amount of the bet? I strongly believe that, at the very least,
if a player asks the Dealer to count a wager, the player should be able to rely on the count given by the Dealer. The dealer's job has involved, for the entire duration of the tournament, counting chips and pots, and there is an inherent sense of trust by players that the Dealer ought to know what he or she is doing. Furthermore, the dealer is often in a better position to perform the count, particularly if two players are at opposite ends of the tables, or when a player has a visual handicap (e.g. due to age or disability).
It is one thing if another player/spectator gives a count or estimate which a potential caller relies upon -- most players can appreciate the fact that they shouldn't automatically "trust" this type of information when given by opponents; however, telling players that they can't even trust a Dealer (who is supposed to be impartial) who is asked to verify a count just smells unfair.
I personally would like to see the Rule changed to something like the following:
"Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation. It is the caller’s responsibility to determine the correct amount of an opponent’s bet before calling, and to ask for verification of the amount by the dealer if there is doubt as to the correct amount. If a caller receives incorrect information regarding a wager from a player, then places that amount in the pot, the caller is assumed to accept the full correct action & is subject to the correct wager or all-in amount. However, if a caller requests a count and receives incorrect information from the dealer which is not corrected by the bettor, and then places that amount in the pot, the caller will only be responsible for the lesser of (a) the actual amount of the wager and (b) the count given by the dealer.I think this fairly puts some responsibility to correct incorrect information given by dealers on the bettor, and allows (and even encourages) players to fairly rely on information requested from the dealer. This proposal shares some similarity to EPT's rule 40 on Accepted Action (see
http://www.europeanpokertour.com/about/rules/), except that the "relief" provided above only applies to misinformation given by Dealers, whereas the EPT rule treats misinformation given by the dealer and by other players in the same way (as I noted earlier, I think they are different - the Dealer is the only person who can give a truly "objective" count).
Thoughts?