Gestures (Rapping the table) recognized as binding.

[Nick C]

This is a topic that we've discussed in the past, without adoption. I believe that the TDA must introduce a rule that recognizes specific in-turn action, such as: tapping on the table, or rapping the table, or any such gesture when it's your turn to act, or when facing a check. There was hardly a hand that took place during this years "final Table" without players signifying a check (or pass) by tapping the table.

What do you think?

[Brian Vickers]

We have a rule in my room that states that any physical gesture that the dealer interprets as a check is binding as a check.  This stops the "tapping finger while thinking" or "pointing, then when dealer says 'check' the player says 'no, that meant all-in'".

Using precedent by previous rules "Any physical gesture that the dealer interprets as a check may be ruled a check" might be the way to go with language.

[WSOPMcGee]

I'm neither for or against the idea.

However, this is sort of an unwritten rule (maybe its written, I'm sure someone wrote it in some book) under general poker knowledge, that as Brian said, any gesture may be interpreted as a check.

[Nick C]

Thomas: This is from R.O.P.E. And I quote "Rapping the table with your hand or using any other gesture that normally interpreted as a pass is considered a 'Check'. Verbal declarations of 'Check' or 'Pass' are binding." I also find it interesting that you never chimed in when I was "in a state of shock" at the 2011 Summit when the word "pass" was not recognized as Official Poker Terminology.

[WSOPMcGee]

Thomas: This is from R.O.P.E. And I quote "Rapping the table with your hand or using any other gesture that normally interpreted as a pass is considered a 'Check'. Verbal declarations of 'Check' or 'Pass' are binding." I also find it interesting that you never chimed in when I was "in a state of shock" at the 2011 Summit when the word "pass" was not recognized as Official Poker Terminology.

The word "Pass" not being recognized is still surprising to me. I remember the discussion of official terminology, but I was not there for either Summit 2011 or 2013 when the actual votes and official TDA stances were adopted. I was only able to attend Day 1 of each and give input. A definite flaw in the system.

Thanks for bringing up the R.O.P.E., I figured someone had written it somewhere    I've been meaning to write a 2nd edition for some time, but so much has changed and things continue to evolve and life gets in the way too.

Like I said, I'm neither for, nor against the idea. I also get told a lot of times that we don't use the McGee Rules of Poker around here..... lol. 

I know I'm not alone when I say I'd like to see the TDA rule set more streamlined and focus on fixing the broken rules instead of adding rules to the rule set that we really have no concrete answers for. Even this topic can be subject to "iffy" unless you use language that uses the wording of "any and gestures that may be interpreted as a check" will be binding. Then add Gestures to the official terminology or glossary (if there is one).

[BillM16]

There are several physical actions that are generally recognized as a check that have troubled me:  the finger twirler,  the arm or table rail tapper, and the ponderer that bounces a chip stack which he might be ready to bet or to check.  I'm sure there are many others that make it hard to standardize.

[Nick C]

Bill:

 Are you suggesting that tapping the table should not be recognized as a "check"? It's used every day, in every card room across the world. We can certainly come up with any number of gestures that would be unacceptable, or not be recognized as proper...I just don't believe that tapping the table on your turn to act should be one of excluded.

 It has to be recognized, because...that's what it is! It's a check.

[BillM16]

Bill:

 Are you suggesting that tapping the table should not be recognized as a "check"? It's used every day, in every card room across the world. We can certainly come up with any number of gestures that would be unacceptable, or not be recognized as proper...I just don't believe that tapping the table on your turn to act should be one of excluded.

 It has to be recognized, because...that's what it is! It's a check.

Nick, I think that everyone will always recognize a tap on the table as a check.  In fact, I believe this will be true whether or not it is included in the TDA rules.  So, what is the value of pursuing this?  Does it make all of the other variations illegal?  How many taps are required? One tap, two taps?  How about the single pinky tap?

What if the Official Terminology and Gestures of Tournament Poker rule #3 were modified to:

Official betting terms and gestures are simple, unmistakable, time-honored declarations and acts like: tapping the table, saying bet, raise, call, fold, check, all-in, pot (in pot-limit only), and complete. Regional terms and gestures may also meet this standard. The use of non-standard language or gesture is at player’s risk because it may result in a ruling other than what the player intended. It is the responsibility of players to make their intentions clear. See also Rules 40 & 49.

Does it help meet the mission of the TDA?  OK, I guess it doesn't hurt but I'm not sure it really helps either.

The players and the game benefit most when actions are verbally declared.  One could argue that it is especially true when adding chips to the pot.  Silently checking by tapping and folding by mucking are universal.  Should there be a section on sanctioned silent actions and their proper interpretations?  I'm afraid it might obfuscate more than enlighten.

[Nick C]

Sorry Bill I don't quite agree with a lot of what you said but...I would give your example my vote today if we can add "pass" and change "complete" to "complete the bet"...I'll really be happy! It does make a difference. At least you're heading in the right direction.

 We are always preaching for players to make their intentions clear, myself included. However, the silent action is much safer for the players. i.e., pushing a short amount can cost you that bet but it won't hold a player to an unintended raise amount, the way a verbal raise would.

 

[chet]

Haven't we discussed several times that the term "complete" only applies to stud type games?  If so, I think Bill's suggestion should include "(in stud type games only)" as he did for the term pot.

Chet

[MikeB]

Haven't we discussed several times that the term "complete" only applies to stud type games?  If so, I think Bill's suggestion should include "(in stud type games only)" as he did for the term pot.

Chet

Though it's perhaps most commonly seen in stud, complete can apply to any limit game where there's a short all-in below a certain standard.

For example, RRoP uses a half-bet standard: any all-in in limit that equals less than half a full bet can be completed. Of course the stud bring-in can always be completed as well.