December 23, 2006 by frenchflush.

I know there is no “universal poker rules” … and in fact that’s what answer me all the house directors went I notice a difference between them!

 But is there a project to make some universal ones?

 GG

Posted in Official Rules & Guidelines, General, Chaos: Sloppy Mgmt of Tables & Tournament, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties, Tournament Directors, Event Structure & Management | Print | 3 Comments »

December 15, 2006 by cuca.

Hi,

Being new to this Forum I’d like to ask about opinions concerning different showdown procedures and IWTSTH in special. There is this 2003 article by Tommy Angelo, wich pretty much convinced me that IWTSTH is doing no good and therefore should be abolished.
I have been (and still am) working on a Tournament Rule Set in German Language, and I am unsure what rules to put into the “Showdown” Section.

At first, I was trying to prevent misuse of IWTSTH by stating a rule like:

“A player who wants to see a hand has to explicitly formulate a suspicion of collusion, naming the two or more players he suspects to collude against him.”
I abandoned this rule recently because of it’s potential to stimulate conflicts between players - although this never happened when I put my rules to use.

Now, I altered it to something like:

“If a Player who was entitled to muck his cards in Showdown does muck his cards, then he cannot be forced to show his cards to other players. However, in cases of suspected collusion, a floorman is entitled to request to check the mucked cards personally to ensure a fair game.”

What do you think of this? In case my suggestion is Bull$ in your eyes - what would be appropriate ruling to deal with suspected colluders?

Posted in Showdowns & Pot Awarding, Mucking, Dead Hands, Etc, Etiquette, Behavior, Play Procedures & Penalties | Print | 2 Comments »

December 11, 2006 by ju5tin.

Hi

In a substantial 2 day, dealer dealt, European no limit hold em tournament,16 players remain, blinds 1500/3000 and there are 960 000 chips in play.

In a pot played between player A and player B (the big blind), Player B looses, the dealer cuts player B’s chips and passes back his change (17 500). Player A is awarded the pot.

Next hand, player B, posts the small blind, and folds to action.

At this point player A complains that his pot was “short”. The dealer completes the hand. The dealer is now sure that he gave the incorrect change to player B and that player B had to return 10 000 of the now, 16 000 in front of him.

A ruling is asked for.

Video is available, which shows that the chips awarded to player A, were probably “short” although a precise count was not possible.

Player A and the dealer maintain that the pot was short.

Player B, is unsure, however has already had action on the 17500 stack, posting the small blind.

Ruling:

In the interests of fairness, player B, is instructed to return 10 000 chips to player A.

Is the best ruling?

Posted in Incorrect Pot Awards, Chaos: Sloppy Mgmt of Tables & Tournament, Dealer Errors, Bad Flops, Etc. | Print | 3 Comments »