Rulings in Poker

Fairness Should Triumph

One of the world's most famous quotes is by the great Chinese philosopher Confucius: "Better wise men than wise laws." Of course, he was speaking about the real world, and at a time long before poker appeared on our planet. Yet, the idea behind this quote is certainly capable of being applied to decision-making in our game of poker.

It seems strange that at a time when the laws of poker are being clarified in such great detail and propagated worldwide, the quality of the decisions using these laws seems to be lagging, being perhaps even worse now than in the past. What is the reason for this seeming inconsistency?

Part of the problem has been that the massive spread of poker has been faster than the growth of qualified people to administer the game. When any sport or game undergoes a quick expansion, both the quality of play and the quality of referees suffer accordingly. The long-run effect of a popularity explosion may be good, but it does not come without growing pains.

We all are familiar with the expressions "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law," the latter being the more highly praised as wise jurisprudence. You make a decision that includes your understanding of the law's purpose, and attempt to be fair instead of too literal-minded. So, I ask, why is the spirit of the law not followed more often in decisions related to game playing?

Here is a quote from Bobby Wolff, a great player at the game of bridge, excerpted from a  recent issue of Bridge World magazine (www.bridgeworld.com). "Edgar [Kaplan] stood alone as the world's greatest bridge jurist, developing and interpreting the rules over a 45-year period. It was not until the latter years of his reign that I recognized his secret for coping with the Laws: The reason his words were treated as gospel was that he would always interpret the law so that equity was accomplished." … "People who are now calling the shots are … performing only half their job by neglecting to interpret laws to assure that right is done."

These words about the game of bridge can easily be applied to our game of poker. Before you even try to find the pertinent rule and apply it, you should let your sense of fairness enter the picture. See if someone is trying to get by invoking a rule what he could not get by merit. A decision-maker should strain to award the pot to the player with the best hand. A decision-maker should strain to avoid penalizing technical errors made by inexperienced people when the action those people took did no harm to anyone. This does not mean that you will have to let an angle-shooter get away with making that same infraction. Realize that rules are usually worded so that they apply to everyone, but that is not the same thing as saying you should make the same ruling regardless of who is involved. Intent matters, and I see nothing wrong with being familiar with a player's past history in judging intent.

I get a lot of correspondence on rules questions. Here is an e-mail about a tournament situation in which a poker player (likely a rookie) made an error resulting from misunderstanding the betting, and he was forced, against his intention, to raise the pot:

"The big blind had 10,000, an early-position limper had 26,000, and the button had 24,000. The blinds were 150-300. An early-position player limped in and the button threw in a 500 chip for a call. However, the big blind got confused and put out 200 more. The dealer forced him to raise the pot, even though he was obviously trying to call a raise."

This is exactly the kind of thinking in people that drives me bananas. Where is the common sense and sense of fairness here? Where is the help for the inexperienced and unwary?

Here is another e-mail, this time from an inexperienced player who committed a minor infraction and had someone at the table try to deprive him of the pot when he was holding the winning hand.

"I was playing in a freeroll tournament at a local bar. I was behind the dealer and went all in. Only the big blind called. I had K-10 offsuit and tossed my cards over. The dealer had not pulled back the muck pile, which is normal in this game. My 10 caught a card edge and rolled over to land facedown. No one said anything, and inasmuch as my card was obviously the top card on the pile, I simply turned it back over. The hand played out, with me winning. As I was raking the chips, someone else at the table said that my hand was technically mucked and that I should forfeit my chips.

"My argument was that it was in the best interest of the game for my hand to play, as the card was obviously the top card on the pile, I was not attempting to muck my hand, and the dealer should have pulled the muck pile back toward him and out of the way if we were going to be so technical.

"So, I was just wondering what the ruling should have been. If I was wrong, I would like to know so that I can apologize. If I'm right, I need to know so that I can make sure that the same thing doesn't happen again. There shouldn't be an argument over something that silly."

This writer was entitled to win the pot, and should not be disqualified on a technicality when anyone could see that he made an honest mistake when holding the winning hand. This is exactly the kind of nitpicking, letter-of-the-law thinking that runs contrary to fairness and can produce poor rulings.

Here is an example of how a good tournament director handles a tough decision: I was one of the last three players in a $1,000 buy-in tournament in Tunica several years ago. I had A-6 in the small blind when the button went all in for about 125,000. I called. He had K-J and paired to win the pot. The next hand, I folded, the small blind raised, and the big blind folded. As the dealer was shuffling, the player who had won the pot from me counted his chips and found that he had considerably less money than he was supposed to have. The tournament director, Jimmy Somerfeld, verified after reconstructing the betting on the last two hands that I had shorted the player 58,000. Jimmy ruled that I would have to make up the shorted amount "for the good of the game," even though another hand had been dealt before the error was discovered. I knew it was the right ruling, and complied without a fuss. Fairness should triumph.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. He may be reached at

(517) 792-0884, or by E-mail at thecoach@diamondcs.net.