By now there are umpteen threads discussing Rule 41. As to what makes it necessary, there are relatively few large dealer miscounts, and relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)... Accepted action makes clear that the bet is what's pushed out, regardless of an error in dealer count (with a Rule 1 exception for really large errors, see at end below...)....
Consider this situation, which has been posted previously, 4 players...
Hi all: I'd like to jump in here, although I do feel it has been a week of rehashing old discussions from old threads - it really must have been Groundhog Day!!
First, I do feel that many TDs have just come to accept Accepted Action and its faults, so I think I'm being realistic when I say that it is unlikely that this will be changed at the Summit, even if it does go to debate. I feel that the current trend in the industry is to take a hard line with players, putting more of the responsibility on the calling player, even in situations where he may have been helpless to prevent an error, and even in situations where the blame can partly be attributed by others, including the bettor, other opponents, the dealer, and sometimes even the TD!
The related discussion on
undercalls and the trend to now treat these as Accepted Action problems is one example -- situations where there has been a gross misunderstanding of a bet or where a player called but did not know that the call amount was for more -- even when the mistake was clearly not the player's sole fault -- is now more commonly ruled as a forced call regardless of the circumstances, under the guise of Accepted Action. The trend is: no more retractions, no more options to top-up or fold. It is the caller's fault, simply put. Accepted Action.
I can sympathize with this hardline stance. The rule is certainly much easier to enforce. It is more "objective" if you will, as there is only one result to apply - the caller is always deemed to accept the action. It gives a way for the TD to avoid criticism from players who disagree with rulings because the TD can always simply point to AA and say "see, the rule says so". Now, the reference to Rule 1 is there, that is true, but there was little guidance on when this should be enforced. So let's face it, this has led to
the new reality, which is fewer and fewer TDs relying on Rule 1, and more and more TDs being less inclined to even bother trying to apply Rule 1, since simply pointing to AA solves the problem quickly, and requires little judgment.
I will admit: if everyone simply followed AA strictly, we would have much more consistent rulings across the board. That is certainly a worthwhile objective. I admit though, that my criticisms of AA are a bit philosophical in nature.
Perhaps we feel we have been subject to so much player abuse that we have become afraid of making difficult calls, for fear of making the "wrong" one. Perhaps some TDs are becoming so lazy that they feel it is much easier to point to a black-and-white rule and say "my hands are tied", rather than taking time and effort to think through the specific facts of each scenario to determine what action is most appropriate from what could be a range of possible decisions. Perhaps it is easier to enforce a one-rule-fits-all situation that even the most inexperienced TD can apply, then to make the effort to train those TDs on how to assess whether a different outcome might be appropriate.
But in all of this, I feel it is easy to forget that our main priority as TDs should always be fairness. It is the top priority in the decision-making process, after all. TDs should never be discouraged from trying to work out situations to determine what the fairest solution should be. That is our job. In my view, blindly applying a rule for the sake of administrative expedience may be the easy way out, but it may not be fair.
In this regard, I have three additional comments:
1. I have always been in favor of providing relief to a calling player when he has relied on what has been purported to be an exact count from the dealer. A number of other rule books contain a similar provision to this effect and there is a reason for it -- being unable to rely on a count that has been provided in good faith from someone who is supposed to be impartial, reeks of unfairness. Other players who have an interest in seeing the count corrected, e.g. the bettor, should share in the responsibility to ensure that the count is correct. Having all parties sharing in the responsibility to prevent irregularities is in the best interests of the tournament.
2. I appreciate the difficulties of offering the protection I speak of above in certain situations, e.g. multi-way situations as Mike so aptly described. Mike's case is a good one -- it would be a huge mess when there are three callers, involving all three different dealer counts. But just because that particular multi-way situation exists, shouldn't mean that it is appropriate to apply AA in all other situations. Mike said that people thought Rule 41 was necessary because "there are
relatively few large dealer miscounts, and
relatively more minor miscounts (off by a chip or two)". However, if the real reason for Rule 41 is that we needed a better way to deal with problems that occur with the
highest frequency, then I would submit that the four-way example scenario provided is itself extremely rare, relatively speaking. I submit that what are probably
most common are heads-up situations, or more generally, situations in which only one count is at issue. And if that is true, why can't we provide some relief to a player who relies on the count of a dealer that stands uncorrected? Fine, apply AA when there are multiple miscounts involved. But this doesn't mean it is fair to apply AA in situations where there is only one count in dispute.
3. Finally, if we are indeed stuck with AA for good, then at least some guidance on when Rule 1 is applicable should be given. In my view, the most important would be that a player should be entitled to relief under Rule 1 if for some reason the caller would have been unable to correctly visually verify the amount of a wager (e.g. if the chips were not pushed in, an all-in button was used but not pushed out, or chips were hidden, etc.). I've said before that a "deaf person" should be able to discern the amount of a particular wager by looking at the state of the table, and if he can't, Rule 1 might well apply: Poker is a visual game - if the "picture" is not clear to the caller, he should have some relief. I also would consider the dealer failing to make a verbal announcement (e.g. raise, all-in) as relevant, although I personally think it is secondary.
This is my 5 cents. (we just phased out the penny)
Poll