To be or not to be: Rulings

[avillan]

I returned to the Brighton card room about 6pm on Saturday night just before the start of the evening £250 comp.
I go to the top tier of the card room where the last four tables for the main event are in progress.

Jon Raab is there, there are also 3 or 4 others people there discussing this crazy rule that has happened, one of these people was blondeite, londonpokergirl..

Basically Jon said that, (relating to the hand with Frazer, Priyan and Iwan Jones) there had been action on every street and they were now on the river. Ian Frazer picks up around 12k in chips and Priyan says "I'll call you" these chips haven't gone over the line and Ian hasn't said anything - Iwan Jones then says words like, I think thats binding, Ian then puts the 12k down and a ruling is called for, Ian then says I'm all in anyway and pushes his chips forward, the floor then comes over, having listened to all 4 parties, Iwan, Ian, Priyan and the dealer the floor decide that Priyan has to call the all-in. Jon was quite adamant that it was the correct ruling and players should be more careful what they say at the table. everyone that was stood there listening to Jon remarked that it's a stupid ruling and should be changed.


The £250 F/O starts and I am on a table with a local player called Parvis (I think the locals call him Jewsy), there is a lot of talk on the table about how ridiculous the ruling was, I got moved onto James Browning table also on there was Ian Cox, Jewsy was moved onto the table with me when our table was broken up. The conversations about this ruling were the general topic of conversation on here as well.


Last hand before the first break and I'm on the button with AKh, folds round to the button (Jewsy), I say to him "come on mate, give us a walk - it's break time - you dont want to get involved". He says " I have a big hand here" then limps as does the small blind, the dealer enquires if there's to be any raise, I say " I am definitely raising but I dont know how much yet" and I look at the button, he says to me "I'll call you". I say to him "you calling me?" he answers "yes" I say "if I go all in - you call?" he says "I will call you".
I then push my chips in and say "I'm all in then", with this Jewsy then starts looking at his cards and fiddling with them, I then say "you have to call me now Jewsy, you said you were calling" he says "I dont have to call you - dont be stupid"
I said "you can call for a ruling if you like but you have to call now" with this he mucked his cards and stood up, the sb mucked, I turned the AK face up to claim the pot.
I then said to the dealer that Jewsy's chips should come into the pot now, the dealer just stared at me, I told the dealer he can get a ruling if he wished, the dealer continued to stare at me.
.
Ian Cox then said "I think you should get the floor over here" (Ian Cox was present the whole time but most of the other players had left their seats at this stage because of the break).
The floor was eventually called and Zak arrived listened to the different sides of events and then called for Jon Raab.
There was then a discussion between Jon, Zak, Dealer, Ian Cox.
The break then ended and players were called back to their seats some 15 minutes later, then there was this period of around 30 minutes where nothing seemed to be happening, in this time Jewsy said to me "If you tell them I can keep my chips then they will let me" I said that I cant tell them what to do and they will rule as they see fit, I said it was unfortunate for him, but because of the ruling that they had made earlier I didnt see how he would be allowed to keep his chips.
There was then a further delay and eventually a decision was made to count Jewsy's chips and he had to match my original all-in bet, I dont know why it took so long (70 minutes) for this decision to be made.
Jon Raab has since told me that there will be a meeting this week and there will be an amendment to the rule making it clearer to players and dealers what goes as verbal and binding at the table and what constitutes as just table talk and isnt binding.
I hope they sort the rule out as if they dont you'll have situations like Roberto and Woodly being gagged for 4 days while they are at the table and players being afraid to speak at the table.

[Claw75]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

[bobAlike]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

[Claw75]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

he implied he did, and said that it 'needs to be sorted out'.  I only wish in this case the player who was forced to make the call still had his cards and that he'd hit.  To have the chips taken off the guys stack after he's mucked and gone on the break is just horrible.

[Pyso]

Poker could learn a lot from golf which has had a standard, world-wide set of rules that have been in place for hundreds of years. They are never deviated from wherever you play and they are truly respected. Hell, players even think nothing of calling penalties on themselves, that's how revered the rules are...


...so how do we have a situation in poker with so much ambiguity across the board?....the mind boggles.

[celtic]

i'm with avillan here. Think about it, this is a carbon copy of something that has just happened in the same casino a few hours earlier. The guy has said he will call if he raises, then when steve goes all in he folds. Who's trying to gain the advantage here? The button imo, he's trying to see a free flop by talking steve into not raising, so he has quite rightly got the rule enforced as it 'should' be, given what has happened earlier.

It's a horrible rule but if it's going to be enforced in one comp in brighton, then it need to be enforced in all.

The only strange thing about it is, what took everyone so long to come to a decision?. (Assuming Steve's version is accurate)

[bobAlike]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

he implied he did, and said that it 'needs to be sorted out'.  I only wish in this case the player who was forced to make the call still had his cards and that he'd hit.  To have the chips taken off the guys stack after he's mucked and gone on the break is just horrible.

Call me a cynic but he said he hopes it gets sorted out. Didn't say which way he'd like it sorted out.
Having known what's happened earlier with the Frazer\Priyan debarcle he's goaded Jewsy to do the same. That's a C**ts trick in my book.

[celtic]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

he implied he did, and said that it 'needs to be sorted out'.  I only wish in this case the player who was forced to make the call still had his cards and that he'd hit.  To have the chips taken off the guys stack after he's mucked and gone on the break is just horrible.

Call me a cynic but he said he hopes it gets sorted out. Didn't say which way he'd like it sorted out.
Having known what's happened earlier with the Frazer\Priyan debarcle he's goaded Jewsy to do the same. That's a C**ts trick in my book.

jewsy said it before steve acted..... steve confirmed what jewsy had said before moving in.

[bobAlike]

if you agree that the ruling was crazy then why did you insist that it was enforced in your hand?

He didn't say he agreed or not.
It's a plain and simple c**ts trick.

he implied he did, and said that it 'needs to be sorted out'.  I only wish in this case the player who was forced to make the call still had his cards and that he'd hit.  To have the chips taken off the guys stack after he's mucked and gone on the break is just horrible.

Call me a cynic but he said he hopes it gets sorted out. Didn't say which way he'd like it sorted out.
Having known what's happened earlier with the Frazer\Priyan debarcle he's goaded Jewsy to do the same. That's a C**ts trick in my book.

jewsy said it before steve acted..... steve confirmed what jewsy had said before moving in.

I don't know Villan but he seems to be a smart chap. He knew what he was doing by asking the questions about calling knowing what happened previously.

[celtic]

i dont really know him either, i met him at brighton for the 1st time. But 'jewsy' clearly said he would call any raise, therefore he should be held accountable. same theory i suppose if he says i fold before steve has had the chance to act in the BB?

Who knows, the rule is daft and needs sorting either way.

[dik9]

I am not sure what the problem is here, verbal action is binding, unless action has changed.  This usually applies to "out of turners".

In the first case, the action had changed from nothing (as no bet had been made or announced), if Ian had taken the 12k back and then checked, the option would still be open to check or bet.

The second instance you asked "IF you go all-in,  would you call?" action has not been made yet, you asked a question. Questions and answers between players are not binding.

[Royal Flush]

Steve i didn't speak my mind at the time under advice from others and also because i think you are a nice guy, and even more so because Juicy decided to let it go but what i thought you did was the scummiest trick i have seen at a poker table in my life.

Everyone in the tournament was talking about how bad the ruling was in the main event and you obviously just sat there thinking of a way to use it, as it happened you picked on a really nice friendly chatty player, he is pretty clueless when it comes to poker but is one of the nicest guys to have on a table as he is always up for banter/table talk. You took advantage of him and its disgusting.

If it had been me you did that on i would have gone apeshit, i don't mind people beating me but people beating me dirty is just not on.

As it happens this idea of a rule that was enforced is clearly ridic and will be torched by the next event, apart from the obvious panic everyone will have at the table about saying anything there is also the massive advantage colluders can get by this rule being in force, it would be easy to make yourself have to fold or whatever by a small 'accidental' comment.

The reason it took 70 mins to make the ruling and thus ensure people had to come back who didnt make the final was that the GUKPT team had realised the ridic way the Priyan situation had been handled and instead of admitting the insane cockup that his exit was they thought better to save face and punish Juicy.


There used to be a rule where a TD uses his common sense in situations like this, i wish they had the strength to do so.

Also not a dig at Raaby who is friend of mine but i don't believe the tour director should have a say in rulings, it is the TD's job.

[dik9]

Apeshit lol, I would have twatted him LOL

Seriously though, I would expect the TD to issue a warning for trying to throw an angle in the second scenario. But suppose this may seem awkward if you had already made clear that the first instance was correct, although slightly different.

Making your point at the expense of another innocent player, is bad form.

[celtic]

spacefrog is viewing. What does spacefrog think?

[Colchester Kev]

spacefrog is viewing. What does spacefrog think?

he aint got time to think, he needs to get cooking ffs !!