PokerTDA
TDA POKER TOURNAMENT RULES & RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES => Official Poker TDA Tournament Rules, Latest Version => Topic started by: MikeB on November 18, 2009, 06:13:28 PM
-
Follow the link below for the Official Poker TDA 2013 Rules Version 1.1, released August 11, 2013 in five different formats to suit your needs:
http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
This board is solely to provide navigation to the latest rules. If you have questions about a particular rule or wish to suggest new rules or amendments, please choose the appropriate forum board for those topics.
-
I know that this is not an overnight process but when will the new rules be posted?
-
Easy Tony:
EVERYONE and I mean every single person on the TDA Board of Directors and whatever support personnel they have, do this because of their love of poker. There is NOT ONE person involved with this who does this as their primary vocation. It is all done voluntarily and totally without compensation. Having been involved with the prior Summit, I remember how much back and forth there was subsequent to the Summit between everyone on the TDA Team to make sure the rules they published accurately reflected the discussions and decisions made. It was several weeks before they released the initial format.
I know they are working diligently, but remember Matt's primary responsibilities are with Savage Tournaments and the WPT. Linda and Jan have full time commitments to Card Player Cruises and Dave Lamb has responsibilities with Savage Tournaments as well as his own work with, I think it is the Peppermill in Reno.
The rules will be published shortly and personally I would rather they take a few extra days to make sure they get it right than to release something that needs to be fixed later on.
-
Poker TDA Rules, Version 2011.1.0 have now been published and are available at:
http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
-
Rule 10 says:
"any player deliberately miscalling her hand..."
I find it odd that, since the majority of the players in open events are male, that "her" is being used instead of "his."
It may be best to consistently say "his/her."
-
It makes the language a bit tedious to be 100% PC, for example:
"If a player folds out of turn his/her hand will be dead but he/she will not be penalized if he/she has not done this in his/her playing history". It was originally drafted in alternating genders (one rule male, the next female), then finally decided to do it in all male, this is one that slipped through.
Any cardroom that wants to can edit he/she throughout on the docx or RTF versions, it won't change the meaning and is 100% TDA compliant.
-
I understand that saying "her" slipped through. But, since the majority of the players in open events are male, it makes sense to consistently say "his." Saying "her" in one rule out of 55 implies that, for this one rule, there's a high probability that a female would be involved in miscalling a hand (because females don't pay attention to the cards or are not as intelligent as the male players, etc.). I'm sure that no one would want to give this impression. Right?
The rules should be written consistently and correctly.
There are other areas in the rules that, if I had written them, would have been written to better specify the thoughts at hand. But this one rule just jumped out in a way that led me to believe that whoever approved it wasn't paying attention.
-
There are other areas in the rules that, if I had written them, would have been written to better specify the thoughts at hand.
Suggestions are always welcome. In 2009 there was a Version 2.0 released about a month after 1.0. That may again be the case this year.
-
Thanks Mike and all the rest for the hard work. I have to say that after my initial read through I thought everything very well reflected what I heard at the summit. I only have a small issue with "Accepting Action" and that may only be because it was my first read through and I didn't quit get it.
Thanks again!
-
Gentlemen:
After looking over the arguments over his/her....I came to the conclusion that "their" is a more appropriate word.
Any player deliberately miscalling their hand may be penalized.
-
"Their" is inappropriate because it suggests more than one person.
-
DCJ001:
WEBSTER-2.) In place of the definite form his or hers.
-
I just read the new version of the rules. I think the changes are excellent!
-
I would like to go over the new Recommended Procedures, just to see how other's may feel. I will add my thoughts on the next reply.
RP-1. All-In Buttons. It is advisable to use an all-in button to clearly indicate that a player’s bet is “all-in”. It is preferable to have these buttons kept by the dealer rather than each player. The dealer places the all-in button in front of an all-in player, in full view of the rest of the table.
RP-2. Bringing in Bets is Discouraged. Routinely bringing in chips as betting and raising proceeds around the table is poor dealing practice. The reduction in bet stacks may influence the action, create confusion & increase the risk of error. The TDA recommends that dealers do not touch a player's bet unless a count is needed. Only the player currently facing action may ask the dealer to bring-in chips.
RP-3. Personal Belongings. The table surface is vital for chipstack management, dealing, and betting. The table and spaces around it (legroom & walkways) should not be cluttered by non-essential personal items. Each cardroom should clearly display its policy on items that may or may not be allowed in the tournament area.
RP-4. Disordered Stub. When cards remain to be dealt on a hand, and the stub is accidentally dropped and appears it may be disordered: 1) it is first preferable to try to reconstruct the original order of the stub if possible; 2) If not possible, try to create a new stub using only the stub cards (not the muck & prior burn cards). These should be scrambled, shuffled, cut, & play then proceeds with the new stub; 3) If when the stub is dropped it becomes mixed in with the muck & burncards, then scramble the stub, muck & burncards together, shuffle, and cut. Play then proceeds with the new stub.
RP-5. Premature Board Cards. Board and burn cards are occasionally dealt prematurely by mistake, before the action on the preceding round is finished. A wide number of possibilities can occur, affecting the flop, turn, or river and their respective burns. When dealing the new board card(s) it is preferable to include the non-revealed original board & burn cards that remain in the stub as part of the new board & burns, if possible.
-
RP-1 I think the idea of an all-in button is great. I was wondering if anyone has experienced problems using it.
a. What happens if the all-in button is put in, by the dealer, and the player has more chips?
b. Exactly where should the dealer place the all-in button after the player goes all-in?
RP-2 I can understand how bringing-in bets can cause some confusion in multy handed pots, and I agree it is not a good dealer practice. I do think that it could be accepted when action is head-to-head. When a player makes a bet, and the other player pushes in a raise, I think that matching the players original bet and placing the equal amounts of the original bet (from each player) into the pot would make the raise amount easier to assess.
RP-4 My feelings on re-shuffle are; A scramble or mix of the cards, (not the standard shuffle) would better guarantee that no cards are exposed. The standard shuffle requires that the cards be gathered and picked-up facing away from the dealer before gathering them together for the first riffle. This would be unacceptable because it would expose the identity of remaining cards.
Your thoughts are always welcome.
-
Nick:
I would think it a better idea to put the thread on comments for Recommended Procedures under the Recommended Procedures thread than under the Rules thread. It keeps them separate and in my opinion better organized and easier to follow. I am sure MikeB can move them if you agree.
Chet
-
Chet,
That's a better idea. I agree. Thanks.
-
Are we going to have any changes to the original TDA rules from this years summit?
-
I guess my question from two months ago was missed by the BOD. Will there be a revised, or updated version of the 2011 TDA Rules ?
-
Please note that Poker TDA 2011 Rules Version 2.0 are now officially released and may be found at:
http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
This forum thread is just a link to the rules, please discuss same in the appropriate categories.
-
Hey there, i got a question about the rule number 38:
Situation when guy on UTG raises 10€, guy on UTG+2 reraises to 20€,
Third guy goes all-in for 37€, can the original raiser (UTG) reraise or not?
-
Hi Tom: I think your question is about Rule 37, (re-opening the betting) if not, please LMK.
UTG makes it $10 total. That was a raise over something I presume, so let's say the SB / BB are 2-4. So BB is 4 and UTG makes it a total of 10 (a raise of 6 over the BB).
The key is that when the bet comes back to UTG, in order for him to re-raise the total bet to him will have to be at least a full legal raise above whatever bet he last made. In this illustration a full legal raise over his last total bet would be 6 more for a total of 16.
In your illustration, UTG+2 raises it to 20 (a raise of 10 over the UTG total bet). Right there the betting is re-opened for the UTG b/c he will be facing a full legal raise. Doesn't really matter what the 3rd guy does.
Ditto if you treat the UTG total bet of 10 as an initial bet... Then a full legal raise is 10 and the UTG+2 raises it by 10 to total of 20, so again re-raising is opened for the UTG, doesn't matter what the all-in does.
In these illustrations, the following wouldn't re-open the betting and the UTG could only call:
UTG raises the 4 BB by 6 for total of 10... The UTG+2 calls and the 3rd guy goes all-in for a total of 15. 15 is an all-in wager that's not a full raise over the UTG. (we need 6, he only raises by 5).
Second case UTG opens for 10, UTG+2 goes all in for 18, the 3rd guy (not all in) calls the 18. The UTG needs a total bet of at least 20 (a full legal raise of 10 over his opener of 10) in order to re-raise. The total is only 18 so he can just call the 18.
-
Hey there, i got a question about the rule number 38:
Situation when guy on UTG raises 10€, guy on UTG+2 reraises to 20€,
Third guy goes all-in for 37€, can the original raiser (UTG) reraise or not?
Ditto answer above. Short answer is, UTG+2 made a legal raise over UTG's bet, and therefore UTG has the right to reraise.
A related question that is often asked is whether UTG+2 can raise more than 37 if UTG simply called 37.... and the answer to that is yes he can (as long as you're not in a place like France). The third guy's all-in is actually more than the minimum raise required to be a "full" legal raise (which is 30, i.e. 20+10); many players mistakenly believe that any "raise" must be double the previous bet size all the time, but that is not correct -- particularly when it comes to re-raises.
-
K-Lo,
I'm sorry but, I'm having a problem trying to follow your raise scenario; "The third guy's all-in is actually more than the minimum raise required to be a "full" legal raise (which is 30, i.e. 20+10); many players mistakenly believe that any "raise" must be double the previous bet size all the time, but that is not correct -- particularly when it comes to re-raises."
Can you give a better example?
Thanks
-
Hi nick:
The original example was that A bets 10 (or raises to 10), B raises to 20, and C goes all-in. How much does C have to be all-in for, such that B can raise again if A just calls? My point is that it is a common misunderstanding that C has to be all-in for at least 40 (i.e. double the 20) in order to reopen the betting to B if A just calls. But C's all-in need not be "double" the previous bet to re-open the betting for B - agreed?
-
K-Lo:
Let me see if I can figure this out. C is facing a total bet of 20 (the original bet of 10 from A and the 10 raise from B). If C wants to raise, he must double the raise and raise at least 20. So the total facing C for min raise is 40 is it not? 20 to call from B and a min raise of 20. It just happens in this case that the numbers work out to a double the previous bet.
Now if A bets 5 and B raises to 20, the raise amount is 15. Then the min raise amount to C is 30 on top of the 20 from B for a total of 50 is it not?
Chet
-
Chet,
No it is not. The raise amount was 15 more so the next min raise is to 35 total.
A bets 5 B raises to 20, the raise amount is 15. the min raise amount is 15 more.
K-Lo,
Your example is also incorrect. Player C must go all-in for at least a total of 30 (not 40), because the raise amount was 10.
-
K-Lo,
Your example is also incorrect. Player C must go all-in for at least a total of 30 (not 40), because the raise amount was 10.
Nick, that is exactly my point. I was pointing out that it is a common misunderstanding that the all-in must be 40 to be a full raise. You are correct that it must be 30, because the size of the largest previous legal raise was 10. I knew you could figure it out. ;)
-
K-Lo,
Can you agree with my reply to Chet, or did I not understand his answer, either? There must be a more simplified way to explain a simple raise rule so anyone should understand it. IMO, the TDA raise rules are in need of work.
-
First of all, thanks for all the replyes!
Now, in my club the minimum raise has to be at liest 2x the previous bet (just to keep the game simple and fluent), so the player C did go all-in for less then minimum raise. Why does the rule say: "In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"?????
Player A has already acted in the betting round (1st raise to 10 from UTG)
-
Why does the rule say: "In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"?????
Player A has already acted in the betting round (1st raise to 10 from UTG)
Good observation. Check out the discussion thread on that point here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=746.0
-
Got one more question on rule 12. Situation: Player A on BB is facing a raise pre-flop from player B on hi-jack. He calls. Flop goes check-check, turn and river as well, who has to show 1st?
-
...If there was no bet in the last round, the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise. ...
Therefore, IMHO
Player A shows first. :)
-
"In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted"?????
Player A has already acted in the betting round (1st raise to 10 from UTG)
It is hard to find the right wording so that there is no confusion. Of course any player who has been fully raised has an option of raising again when the action comes back to them (Player A in your situation). The real question that is answered by this line is if Player B is allowed to raise. The sentence is in this rule to help TDs/players/dealers differentiate between limit and no-limit.
UTG raises 10€, guy on UTG+2 reraises to 20€, (Alright, right now we know that UTG will have the option to raise when the action comes back to them because they were raised...fully.)
Third guy goes all-in for 37€, can the original raiser (UTG) reraise or not? (This part does not even apply to your question.)
Because we already know UTG is able to raise, the next question is if UTG+2 is able to raise.
Let's look at the scenario.
A bet 10
B bet 20 (raised 10)
C bet 37 (raised 17)
According to TDA,
In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted
Ok, so we now just need to determine what a full raise is and if each player made one.
A raise must be at least the size of the largest (bet or) raise of the current betting round.
A bet 10
B raised 10 (At least the size of A's bet)
C raised 17 (At least the size of B's raise)
According to TDA, every player made a full raise. So "In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted" does not apply in this situation because they were all full raises.
If your house rules are different, it makes it more difficult. Your establishment has to figure out how they mesh with TDA's set of rules.
Hope that helps!
-
Got one more question on rule 12. Situation: Player A on BB is facing a raise pre-flop from player B on hi-jack. He calls. Flop goes check-check, turn and river as well, who has to show 1st?
According to TDA, if it is a checked round on the river, showdown goes in order from the button with the button being last.
-
Thanks yo all, i really appreciate every post!
-
Tristan,
Looking back at your reply #34, I thought it would be beneficial to ask our members what the next min raise would be:
Let's look at the scenario.
A bet 10
B bet 20 (raised 10)
C bet 37 (raised 17)
The answer is a min raise of 17 for a total of 54. (10+10+17+17=54).
This would apply to any player in the hand, that follows Player C's raise; Player's D, E, F if there were multiple player's, or Player A or B.
-
Where is everyone? Does no response mean everyone agrees with me ??? By everyone, I'm referring to the 1/10th of 1% of the members that participate on the forum.
Mike B, K-Lo, Chet, Tristan, Brian, Stuart, Luca, TomKarr, Jasper, Ebro, bgoods, cwmiller...
-
Agreed! ;)
-
Nick:
As bad as I screwed up my last answer, I have decided to sit back and absorb some of the knowledge and experience from others that obviously are a step or two higher on the ladder of smarts than I. ;D
Besides it is too damn cold around here for my brain to work on all cylinders, have to wait for the weather to change seasons.
Chet
-
Chet,
No problem. We are in a deep freeze here, too.
It took me a long time to understand the current raise rules for no-limit and pot limit. Now that I have it all figured out, I'm sure someone will come along and change it. I know there are many that have problems with these rules...that is why I am always sticking my 2 cents in. Many of the rules for poker need to be written so they are easily understood by all. I am not in favor of changing all of the rules, as many believe, however most are in need of clarification. Clear examples of specific situations would be helpful.
K-Lo,
I'm glad you responded. :)
For those that do not agree, or just don't understand, please let us know. I'm sure we will be able to help.
-
Yep, sorry Nick, thought you were talking to others. Total agreement with your example.
Chet, I hear you man! Going down to the Bahamas for 10 days spoiled me...I got back and was hit by this negative degree weather...Ugh!
-
Hello, got new question and it is about technical aplication...
Does the dealer or floor or tournament director have the right to count players chip-stack when some other player requires it? I mean chip-stack, not a bet or all-in that was placed in the middle of the table.
-
Hello, got new question and it is about technical aplication...
Does the dealer or floor or tournament director have the right to count players chip-stack when some other player requires it? I mean chip-stack, not a bet or all-in that was placed in the middle of the table.
Hi Tom: You will find what i think is a related discussion on your topic here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=600.0
-
TomKarr,
I know the dealer can't count the chips; and I know of no specific rule that even allows the floor to count a players chips. As long as they are clearly visible and not in "dirty stacks." I guess you could ask the player in question for a count. If he refuses...well, I guess he doesn't have to tell you.
-
Heads-up announcement: Version 1.0 of the 2013 Poker TDA Rules, Recommended Procedures, and Illustration Addendum will be released as early as Friday August 9, 2013. By the time the web team gets all files in place that may translate to availability on Saturday or Sunday at the latest.
The rules will first be available from links on the main Poker TDA webpage at: http://www.PokerTDA.com
Further announcements will also be made here when those are published, and an e-blast will go out announcing same.
-
The 2013 TDA Rules, Version 1.0, along with the 2013 Recommended Procedures and Illustration Addendum are now available for viewing and downloading in English here:
http://www.pokertda.com/poker-tda-rules/
One of the format options is a handout-size PDF with redlines showing changes from the 2011 Rules.
Other language translations will be posted as those become available at this link:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?board=27.0
-
Thanks for putting in the time and effort to put these together.
-
Awesome!
-
I created some pdf's of the 2013 TDA Rules.
The pdf's include a QR Code that can be scanned by a smart phone and point to the PokerTDA website.
I would be willing to create customized versions of these documents for your casino or poker room. The customized version would include the name of your casino or poker room at the top and/or bottom of the front page. Feel free to Contact Me (http://www.homepokertourney.com/contact_me.htm) to request a FREE customized version.
Full-size
2013 TDA Rules with the Illustration Addendum and Recommended Procedures (http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rule-book-tda-2013-fullsize.pdf)
2013 TDA Recommended Procedures (http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rule-book-tda-2013-recommended-procedures-fullsize.pdf)
Booklets
2013 TDA Rules with an index (http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rule-book-tda-2013-booklet.pdf)
2013 TDA Rules with the Illustration Addendum and Recommended Procedures (http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rule-book-tda-2013-all-booklet.pdf)
2013 TDA Rules Illustration Addendum (http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rule-book-tda-2013-addendum-booklet.pdf)
Print all the 'odd numbered' pages of the booklet on your computer printer and then feed those same pages back into your printer and print the 'even numbered' pages. Collate the pages, fold them in half, and staple them down the spine to form a booklet. This is what the booklet looks like (before it is folded in half) ...
(http://www.homepokertourney.com/images/rulebooklet.jpg)
Web Pages
An easy-to-read web page with the TDA Rules (http://www.homepokertourney.com/poker-rules-tda.htm)
A slimmed down version of the TDA Rules on my mobile site (http://mobile.homepokertourney.com/mobile-tda-poker-rules.htm)
Good luck, Barry
HomePokerTourney.com
-
Barry: Thanks alot! Anyone wanting a customized version for use at their venue should take advantage of this.
Also take advantage of the tremendous resources at http://www.HomePokerTourney.com one of the most useful poker portals out there.
-
Hi Mike,
Assuming there is a 2.0 version to the literature, do you think it possible that you could remove all references to the words "His", "He", etc? For example:
A player must be at his seat when the first card is dealt on the initial deal or he will have a dead hand. A player not then at his seat is dealt in, he may not look at his cards, and the hand is immediately killed after the initial deal. His blinds and antes are posted and if dealt the bring-in card in a stud-type game he will post the bring-in*. A player must be at his seat to call time. “At your seat” means within reach of your chair. This rule is not intended to condone players being out of their seats while involved in a hand. [*Note: In stud, house rules may require additional card(s) be dealt to the killed hand in certain situations.]
I realize the poker world is dominated by male participants, however if we want to attract more people to the game both male and female we need to remove this type of language that alludes to identifying players as a single gender. JMO.
-
Hi Mike,
Assuming there is a 2.0 version to the literature, do you think it possible that you could remove all references to the words "His", "He", etc? For example:
A player must be at his seat when the first card is dealt on the initial deal or he will have a dead hand. A player not then at his seat is dealt in, he may not look at his cards, and the hand is immediately killed after the initial deal. His blinds and antes are posted and if dealt the bring-in card in a stud-type game he will post the bring-in*. A player must be at his seat to call time. “At your seat” means within reach of your chair. This rule is not intended to condone players being out of their seats while involved in a hand. [*Note: In stud, house rules may require additional card(s) be dealt to the killed hand in certain situations.]
I realize the poker world is dominated by male participants, however if we want to attract more people to the game both male and female we need to remove this type of language that alludes to identifying players as a single gender. JMO.
Hi Thomas: Great question. The rules have been written several ways in the past. One was the consistently correct "if he or she declares raise then he or she bets 50 then he or she will have to make a full raise". While gender-accurate, making sure everytime he or she, her or him, etc. was used proved to be cumbersome. Then we switched to using male and female alternately, so one rule would reference a male player (him / he) and the next would reference a female (her / she). Personally I still like this latter approach.
Ultimately in the interest of both brevity and consistency it was all changed to male gender. From memory Linda Johnson may have recommended this. One major objective of TDA rules is to be written in as few words as possible that convey the rule. In fact a big goal for the 2015 rules will be a rule-by-rule review to see what verbiage can be condensed.
However the expectation is that when each venue writes up it's house rules, it will use both male and female references... and that's what is done in alot of house rules.
Perhaps in Version 2.0 we could add an explanatory line:
"For brevity, pronouns herein are in male gender only (him / he). It is recommended that when incorporating TDA rules into house rules that both genders be used".
Another interesting possibility is something Nick posted some time ago about how "they" can actually reference just one person and be grammatically correct. From memory it was something like "If a player declares raise then they bet 50, they will have to make a full raise". But not sure this is a universally accepted use of the pronoun.
Anyway, open to ideas but would like to avoid having to use "he or she", "him or her" everytime.
-
From a little Google research:
Check out this link it makes some interesting suggestions:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-singular-pronouns?page=all
Chet
-
Thomas,
I understand your concerns but, when we consider the ratio of female to male in poker, the difference is very one-sided.When the gender of a person is unknown, or when the antecedent represents both male and female, I prefer (as do many other's) using third person plural forms. Such as: "Seasoned player's keep their opinions to themselves." As opposed to using he or she.
I see no reason to go through the time and effort to change any of the TDA rules because of gender issues. Women are a big part of poker and will always belong, however, when the TDA Discussion Forum consists of over 20 to 1 male to female ratio...let's leave it the way it is.
Hey Chet, Pretty interesting link. It appears that many are having problems dealing with the gender problem in writing. I expect that there are many issues about gender that we haven't tackled yet...I do recall one that stands out; the protests from members of the male gender, that screamed (probably like a little girl) because they (he) couldn't work at Hooters! ;D
-
Thomas,
I see no reason to go through the time and effort to change any of the TDA rules because of gender issues. Women are a big part of poker and will always belong, however, when the TDA Discussion Forum consists of over 20 to 1 male to female ratio...let's leave it the way it is.
This would take all of maybe ten seconds. All you have to do is have a program find all references to the specific word and change it. Find "word" ---> Change all to "new word" --> Done. It's that simple.
Preferably I'd like to see such references changed to Player(s). Then use they and their references just like that article Chet referenced. Excellent article, because this type of thing drives me crazy even though I hate being politically correct. But in this case politically correct is best. We're trying to include, not exclude.
-
Hi Mike,
Assuming there is a 2.0 version to the literature, do you think it possible that you could remove all references to the words "His", "He", etc? For example:
A player must be at his seat when the first card is dealt on the initial deal or he will have a dead hand. A player not then at his seat is dealt in, he may not look at his cards, and the hand is immediately killed after the initial deal. His blinds and antes are posted and if dealt the bring-in card in a stud-type game he will post the bring-in*. A player must be at his seat to call time. “At your seat” means within reach of your chair. This rule is not intended to condone players being out of their seats while involved in a hand. [*Note: In stud, house rules may require additional card(s) be dealt to the killed hand in certain situations.]
I realize the poker world is dominated by male participants, however if we want to attract more people to the game both male and female we need to remove this type of language that alludes to identifying players as a single gender. JMO.
Anyway, open to ideas but would like to avoid having to use "he or she", "him or her" everytime.
Hi Mike,
I completely agree with that, and completely agree with the article Chet posted. I can't stand "Whiplash Grammar". When I read it I have this vision in my head "it's guy", no "it's a girl" no... what is it? Ugh.
I don't see any reason why we can't just refer to them as "players" and then use the "they" "their" "them" in instances that are necessary for brevity. This may take all of 10 seconds to change the references... maybe 30 minutes to proof read after that. That's about all it should take. If that's too much time as Nick suggested... I'll volunteer. :)
-
Thomas,
I made the suggestion (to get off the singular pronoun) over two years ago on this Forum. If it really bothers you that much, you should take 10 seconds and fix the singular pronoun references that you have in your own R.O.P.E. before you tackle the TDA Rules.
-
Thomas,
I made the suggestion (to get off the singular pronoun) over two years ago on this Forum.
Nick: didn't you post a link awhile back to a grammar site about how "they" can refer to a single person, something like that? Or was that Chet who posted it, any idea? Chet posted one recently but I thought you did quite awhile ago or... ?
Thanks!
-
Thomas,
I made the suggestion (to get off the singular pronoun) over two years ago on this Forum. If it really bothers you that much, you should take 10 seconds and fix the singular pronoun references that you have in your own R.O.P.E. before you tackle the TDA Rules.
I have single gender references on there?? Damn me! I'll be fixing that for sure!
-
Thomas,
I made the suggestion (to get off the singular pronoun) over two years ago on this Forum. If it really bothers you that much, you should take 10 seconds and fix the singular pronoun references that you have in your own R.O.P.E. before you tackle the TDA Rules.
Ouch! ;)
-
Mike,
It was me...and it was over two years ago. It pertained to a similar situation. If you look back, the TDA introduced a rule that made reference to "her" instead of "him" or "she" instead of "he." In any event, my suggestion was to replace the singular pronoun with the plural, "their"...only when you feel it's appropriate.
This has been a problem for many of the most educated writers...forever! After a little research, I believe that the plural is almost always preferred, especially when repeated over and over again. I think, "he" or "she" or "him" or "her" is easier to read, (and less boring), when used sparingly. Poker rules require constant reference to the actions of players, so replacing the singular is much easier to read, and certainly understandable. Although, it will require a little reconstruction of a sentence. I'm not sure it's quite as easy as Thomas McGee suggested. I will say that Thomas' Book is the best rule set I've ever read, as far as avoiding the singular pronoun use.
I also want to say...when we are not sure of the gender, replacing "he" with "she" will never work.