Hi GG:
Here are my opinions -
Case 1) A player read personnal notes & stats each time it's his turn to play. But he does it quite quickly, without loosing time and we checked the notes: no electronic devise hidden or anything: I let him free!
There is no explicit rule against the use of notes, but I would NOT permit it during the play of a hand. In between hands OK, but during a hand, I believe that is akin to 'coaching' and I personally feel it violates the one-person-to-a-hand rule. Besides, if everyone started referring to their notes while a hand in progress (e.g. to track opponents' player tendencies, etc.), we'd have a big problem on our hands. Unless it is to accommodate some sort of disability, I don't know why we shouldn't have a rule that prohibits the use of aids during a hand, mechanical, electronic or otherwise.
Case 2) With 2 players preflop waiting for the flop, a dealer think it's over and mix the muck with the deck ... I made him shuffle the muck & deck and rebuilt a deck to continue the hand!
If the top of the deck clearly cannot be separated from the muck and retrieved, then I would also reshuffle.
Case 3) A player told me that the TDA recommand to empeach players in the hand to talk when they are more than 2 ... ?!? ... I let the 3 players speak free as long as no collusion and no telling they cards!
I think we have discussed this in some other posts: my personal view is that, in general, talk should be kept to a minimum while there are multiple players left to act. The chances that a player will say something that will influence how the hand will otherwise play out is much greater in multi-way pots. If it is just friendly banter going back and forth, then I am not going to make a big deal out of it. But if people are analyzing the hand, and one person says something about player #2's play that ends up affecting how player #3 will play the hand or otherwise assisting him, why wouldn't this be a contravention of the one-player-to-a-hand rule?
Case 4) Two players at the flop. One bet, the other goes all in (shorter stack) and throw is hand forward faces down (?) ... the dealer killed the hand (in the muck) ... I declared the player eliminated!
Agreed. If the hand is irretrievably mucked, he can't win! However, I don't understand why the dealer would kill the hand... the dealer should not have mucked the hand in the first place as both all-in hands must be shown. Also, if I suspected "chip dumping", I may not permit the pot to be awarded, give the pot back to the player who tried to muck and then disqualify him.
Case 5) Some major tournaments autorize the dealers, when asked by a player, to count the difference to put in the pot after a raise (To call you should add the amount of X) when the players are only 2 left ... I refuse: the only amount my dealers are obliged to count are the total bets (when not declared by the bettor and when asked by the other player)!
I don't see why the dealer cannot give a count of the amount to be called if specifically asked to do so by the player in turn. Some argue that it's not up to the dealer to help the player with the "math", but the called amounts are already committed the pot and historically dealers could bring these into the pot leaving the uncalled amount left behind anyways, so I don't see why this has changed. If the player asks "how much is it", the total should be given; If the player asks "how much is it to call" or "how much more", I think the dealer should comply and let the player know what the difference is.
Case 6) Depending of the casino or poker room, we support the deals between the players in final table but I never accept to stop the clock without an official break to help them making the deal!
If everyone at the table agrees to discussing the possibility of a deal, then especially if it is the first (and potentially final) discussion, I don't have a problem pausing the clock once to allow the players to work out the details. In general though, I agree with you that the clock should not be stopped otherwise.
Case 7) Some players (and dealers) complain of the fact they must still put the antes when in final heads-up saying it's a waste of time: I oblige them to keep on doing it: antes in final heads-up!
Playing with antes is part of the game. The amount of the ante relative to the blinds changes between levels, and can make a certain play (e.g. steal) more or less correct depending on the relative size. Why would we take this away from players who actually understand that? Put in the ante, and play on!
