POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Suggestions for new TDA rules and amendments to existing rules READ-ONLY ARCHIVES Pre-2011 Summit => Topic started by: higavin on March 16, 2011, 03:55:56 PM

Title: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: higavin on March 16, 2011, 03:55:56 PM
A thread on the 2+2 forum gave me pause to consider what seems to be a conflict in the two rules I listed in the subject.  I have quoted the two
rules at the bottom of this post for convenience.

Mainly, if a player uses two chips of different sizes to call a raise, he might be forced to make a minimum re raise when his intent was only to call. 
Yet another player using two chips of identical size, thinking he was raising, might be relegated to just call.

IE:  Blinds are 200T/400T

Player A raises to 1100T using a single $1000T and a single $100T chip.  The raise amount is $700T
Player B acts using 2 $1000T chips but says nothing.  As per Rule #33, he has just called since removing either chip would make his bet
less than a call.  His intent was to raise but he failed to say raise so his action is just a call. 

Player C, seeing the action before him, puts in 2 chips, one is $1000T and one is $500T and says nothing. 
He wanted to just call the bet of $1100 but according to Rules 31 and 33, by using two different sized chips, he added $400 which is 50% or
more of the raise so he must now add $300 to his bet to complete the full raise.

Yes, the problems are solved if players will verbalise their actions, I'm a dealer I would prefer that.  But not everyone is an
experienced, savy tournament player and I'm thinking a solution can be found to prevent these type situations.

Or am I missing something altogether?

31.  A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts
in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The
raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). 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.

33.  Multiple Chips
When facing a bet, unless a raise is first declared, multiple same-denomination chips is a call if removing one chip leaves
less than the call amount. Example of a call: preflop, blinds 200-400: A makes it 1200 (an 800 raise), B puts out two 1000
chips without declaring raise. Placing chips of mixed denominations in the pot is governed by the 50% standard in Rule 31.
Title: Re: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: JasperToo on March 16, 2011, 05:09:17 PM
hi higaven   :D

I don't believe there is a 'conflict' between the rules but there is quite a bit of agreement among us that a language change to rule 31 for that bit to say MORE THAN 50%.  That way you eliminate one of the problems and I think the multiple denom chip thing is easy to understand and a player will learn to throw in a third small chip in the future, or declare his action.

You would do well to check out this thread:  It discusses the relationship of rules #30, #31, and #33 and some of the changes that will likely be discussed at this years TDA Rules Summit.
Title: Re: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: Oddvark on March 17, 2011, 08:40:55 PM
Interestingly, when the 2009 version of the TDA rules were first released (in July 2009, I think), which was the first time Rule 33 on "Multiple Chips" appeared, it read as follows:

33. Multiple Chips
Unless a raise has been declared, placing multiple chips in the pot that add to less than double the bet one is facing will be deemed a call if removal of any one chip leaves less than the bet the player could have called.

Under that July 2009 version of the rule, the "conflict" mentioned by higavin would not exist.  In both cases -- playing two T1000 chips or playing one T1000 and one T500 -- the action would be ruled a call because "removal of any one chip" would leave less than T1100, which is the bet the player could have called.

The current Rule 33 as quoted above is from the TDA Rules Version 2009.2.0 (released Sept. 15, 2009).  I wonder if the drafters/editors of the rule considered situations such as this when writing the rule.

Personally, I prefer the original version of Rule 33 that applied to all multiple chip plays and not only those of "same-denomination" chips.
Title: Re: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: Nick C on March 18, 2011, 06:31:59 AM
Higavin, and Oddvark,
 I have always assumed that the example you give of the multiple different denomination chips would still be a call. However....after looking at rule #33 I can clearly see how this created confusion. Oddvark, I will have to agree with you on this one, the old rule may have been better. If I were dealing I would have given the player 400 change from his 1000 and 500. Yet the way the rule is written, I would have been wrong.
 Jasper, take a closer look at the original question and I'm sure you will see that, the 1000 and the 500 chip would qualify as over 50% and dictate that the player complete the raise to 1800. Add #33 to this years list. The perfect example given by higavin made the difference for me.
Title: Re: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: JasperToo on March 21, 2011, 07:13:29 AM
Your right Nick, I didn't study the example well enough I guess.  It is a perfect example of two different situations from which one could perceive a conflict between the rules.

I think Oddvark's example of what may have been an earlier version of the rule would make it so that multiple chips could be governed by a sort of modified "single chip rule" and make those situations all CALLS.  That way the player would have to take more time to declare a raise and less time worrying about goofing up on just making a call. 

Though, I am with higavin in that it's not that difficult for a player to make his intentions known.

I do think those two rules are easy enough to administrate though and players generally are careful to declare a 'call' when they know they are putting in chips valued at more than bet size.
Title: Re: Rules 31 and 33 possible conflict
Post by: Nick C on March 21, 2011, 09:14:00 AM
 That's very true. Too bad we couldn't make it mandatory that whenever any player puts multiple chips into the pot he must announce his intentions. Thinking out loud....I know that will never happen.