BlueSq.com GUKPT Brighton: Day 2

[gasman]

ul Martyn, constantly getting close

[jambo22]

I'm not saying what Jones did was right or wrong but surely poker etiquette dictates that if you're not in the hand you shouldn't be talking?

De Mel should know better making such statements- Frazier should have called for the ruling if he believed it to be a call

Agree 1,000,000 % great post.

Jones should concentrate on HIS hands and De Mel should keep quiet, but the onus was on Frazer to ask for a ruling, not one of his buddies. I also think it was a very poor decision by the TD, but he has the final say.

I think it's unfair to chastise a player for calling a ruling despite not being a hand. If people want clarifications on anything, I don't see how it's bad etiquette.

I just put myself in that postion, and thought how would i feel REALLY pissed off . As has already been said, people do say things at the table and it classed as banter unless its abusive.  Good job on the updates by the way

[gatso]

Unless the rule that any table talk goes has changed in 2009 Priyan has been robbed.

it's a grosvenor rule and right or wrong has been for a long time. I've seen it enforced at several venues around the country

[NoflopsHomer]

It's obviously a crazy ruling, this isn't how is was reported earlier though. The initial report said Frazer shoved after the river had been dealt and Priyan said "I've got to call you", totally different to what actually happened.

Sorry, this was how it was recounted to me originally. Apologies about that.

To clarify Ian Frazer was picking up chips on the river, as did Priyan, who said "I'll have to call," to Frazer. Which was when the ruling was made.

[kukushkin88]

I totally disagree with George2L and Jambo here. As poker players all that we should want is that the correct ruling is made in every situation. The TD has made a mistake here but regardless of that all players at a table should do their best to ensure fair play at all times, that's all Iwan appears to be doing here.

[gasman]

arghhh that Bernard Litman is such a pain in the arse, really aggro and looks so shifty, but apparantly ''always has the goods''

Definetley got the better of me on day 1 , gl too him.

[LeKnave]

does lewindon grind tornys online? if so whts his scrnname?

glglglgl to james666

[AlrightJack]

The key thing here, disragarding Iwan's involvement, is should verbal declarations be binding? Under the current Grosvenor rules they are. Of course, verbal statements may be ambigous, in which case, they are not binding, e.g 'It's likely I will call', 'I might call', etc. 'I will call' or words to that specific effect that are unambiguous are taken as declarations of intent, and are therefore ruled to be binding under the current set of rules. Rules are not set in stone, they can be changed and the Grosvenor rules committee does listen to opinions of players when considering contentious issues like this. Rest assured it will be discussed at our next meeting and before then we will investigate the verbal declaration rules of other organisations and take on board the comments of players.

[NoflopsHomer]

Ramsey Ajram raises to 10,300 from the hijack. Andreas Hoivold bumps it up to 28,300. Ramsey stares at Andreas and the Norwegian gives him the 'thumbs up'.

Ajram passes, he's been 3bet a lot recently, particularly by Matt Perrin.

Players on a short break.

[kukushkin88]

The key thing here, disragarding Iwan's involvement, is should verbal declarations be binding? Under the current Grosvenor rules they are. Of course, verbal statements may be ambigous, in which case, they are not binding, e.g 'It's likely I will call', 'I might call', etc. 'I will call' or words to that specific effect that are unambiguous are taken as declarations of intent, and are therefore ruled to be binding under the current set of rules. Rules are not set in stone, they can be changed and the Grosvenor rules committee does listen to opinions of players when considering contentious issues like this. Rest assured it will be discussed at our next meeting and before then we will investigate the verbal declaration rules of other organisations and take on board the comments of players.

In this instance he is speculating about a future event which may or may not even happen, it can't possibly be binding.

[AlrightJack]

The key thing here, disragarding Iwan's involvement, is should verbal declarations be binding? Under the current Grosvenor rules they are. Of course, verbal statements may be ambigous, in which case, they are not binding, e.g 'It's likely I will call', 'I might call', etc. 'I will call' or words to that specific effect that are unambiguous are taken as declarations of intent, and are therefore ruled to be binding under the current set of rules. Rules are not set in stone, they can be changed and the Grosvenor rules committee does listen to opinions of players when considering contentious issues like this. Rest assured it will be discussed at our next meeting and before then we will investigate the verbal declaration rules of other organisations and take on board the comments of players.

In this instance he is speculating about a future event which may or may not even happen, it can't possibly be binding.

Not so. If someone says 'If you bet, I will call', they are making a conditional statement of intent. If that person bets, the condition applies.

[jambo22]

The key thing here, disragarding Iwan's involvement, is should verbal declarations be binding? Under the current Grosvenor rules they are. Of course, verbal statements may be ambigous, in which case, they are not binding, e.g 'It's lilkely I will call', 'I might call', etc. 'I will call' or words to that specific effect that are unambiguous are taken as declarations of intent, and are therefore ruled to be binding under the current set of rules. Rules are not set in stone, they can be changed and the Grosvenor rules committee does listen to opinions of players when considering contentious issues like this. Rest assured it will be discussed at our next meeting and before then we will investigate the verbal declaration rules of other organisations and take on board the comments of players.

Evening Jonathan,

I agree rules are rules, , but why did the TD not enforce/apply the rules instead of another player. The point I am making that in all poker games there is banter at tables, which does not require the player to make a play based on anything said.

[George2Loose]

The key thing here, disragarding Iwan's involvement, is should verbal declarations be binding? Under the current Grosvenor rules they are. Of course, verbal statements may be ambigous, in which case, they are not binding, e.g 'It's likely I will call', 'I might call', etc. 'I will call' or words to that specific effect that are unambiguous are taken as declarations of intent, and are therefore ruled to be binding under the current set of rules. Rules are not set in stone, they can be changed and the Grosvenor rules committee does listen to opinions of players when considering contentious issues like this. Rest assured it will be discussed at our next meeting and before then we will investigate the verbal declaration rules of other organisations and take on board the comments of players.

In this instance he is speculating about a future event which may or may not even happen, it can't possibly be binding.

Not so. If someone says 'If you bet, I will call', they are making a conditional statement of intent. If that person bets, the condition applies.

It's a tough one imho. Depends what context. I can fully understand why in the above scenario the call would be binding else someone could use it as a tactic to stop someone betting but the way I understand the report it sounds like there was table talk going on. Frazier uses it well with the best of them

[MC]

Priyan checks, Ian is thinking what to bet and Priyan says ''I'll have to call''

Now a ruling is called and TD says ''yes its binding, whatever he bets you have to call'' so Ian moves in 37k into like 24k pot and Priyan forced to call, sounds a bit harsh to me.

This is a fucking ridiculous ruling by the TD.

Unless the rule that any table talk goes has changed in 2009 Priyan has been robbed.

And for someone not involved in the pot to ask for the ruling makes it even worse (if that's possible).

^^perhaps that's a bit OTT, but I have to agree in that I dislike the ruling

[gasman]

Hey Jon, well done for picking up the trophy at the European Poker Awards.

Talking about trophys, have they been scrapped for winners of GUKPT events this year?