Good play or abusing the rules?

connie147

Playing at the city west last week-end, this incident happened and I'd like boardsters opinions on it.Its one of the support events and we're not that far from the money(about 30 left and 20 being paid).Im on the button with approx 20k, sb has only 4k while bb has about 30k(well known player).Blinds are 1,000-2,000,folded around to me on the button.Ive watched bb and after checking his cards he sits back and makes or takes a phone call so I can safely rule him out of the hand so I push with K-J,small blind thinks for a minute and moves all-in(K-4),then bb says "I gotta go,Im in a hand",finishes his phone call and pushes his chips over the line.The dealer says he cant accept the bet as he was on the phone,the player objects and calls for a ruling,and the TD agrees with the player and says his hand is live.He turns over aces and proceeds to knock the two of us out.I shook hands and left the table but was seething and left the TD know in no uncertain terms my thoughts on his decision.(he accepted he had made the wrong decision.My beef is not really with the TD,its with the player who intentionally used his phone to give the impression he had no interest in the hand.I used to respect him as a player but now I have reservations.Am I over-reacting?
P.S.--When I had words with the TD it was in private and out of sight of the table.

carrigeen

not nice I think that is taking speech play too far I think ur right to be pissed off

also surpised by the ruling I thought if you are on the phone your hand is mucked i always put mine on silent and would never answer in a hand for fear of being disqualified

sorry just reread it and td accepted wrong ruling was given

The Ace Face

connie147 wrote:

Playing at the city west last week-end, this incident happened and I'd like boardsters opinions on it.Its one of the support events and we're not that far from the money(about 30 left and 20 being paid).Im on the button with approx 20k, sb has only 4k while bb has about 30k(well known player).Blinds are 1,000-2,000,folded around to me on the button.Ive watched bb and after checking his cards he sits back and makes or takes a phone call so I can safely rule him out of the hand so I push with K-J,small blind thinks for a minute and moves all-in(K-4),then bb says "I gotta go,Im in a hand",finishes his phone call and pushes his chips over the line.The dealer says he cant accept the bet as he was on the phone,the player objects and calls for a ruling,and the TD agrees with the player and says his hand is live.He turns over aces and proceeds to knock the two of us out.I shook hands and left the table but was seething and left the TD know in no uncertain terms my thoughts on his decision.(he accepted he had made the wrong decision.My beef is not really with the TD,its with the player who intentionally used his phone to give the impression he had no interest in the hand.I used to respect him as a player but now I have reservations.Am I over-reacting?
P.S.--When I had words with the TD it was in private and out of sight of the table.

Connie, I would be fuking fuming....too the point of going mental...it was slowly and carefuly detailed about the use of mobiles prior to my game at citywest tournie. Everyone should know the story...2 points:

1) What is the point of having a TD who doesn't apply the rules...like having ref giving red cards but letting players stay on the pitch! To make it worse he agrees with you afterwards!!!!!!!:mad: I would have agressively disputed decision at the table and if he still bowed to "well known" player I wouldn't play in a tournie with similar TDs again. Whats the point?

2) If player intentionally broke the tournie rules to cause deception he should have been disqualified from hand/tournie....sounds like a @%^& to me....TD should have sorted this out....

Unlucky you probably should have made money!
I take it TD had all relevant info on which to make his decision...

Ray " The Angry":mad:

MadsL

Blatent. Especially with Aces.

As far as the TD is concerned, I would of thought that the use of mobiles at the table automatically mucks his hand. There can be no way that a TD can be sure that an opponants hand has not been revealed to the player by a third party. In a tournament of this size/profile surely there can be no doubt that mobiles cannot be used at the table. Shocking decision.

karlh

who did it?

5starpool

I would never make this assumption, and I think you read too much into it. I don't think he did anything unsporting tbh.

However I thought it was a PE rule that your hand was dead if you used the phone at the table? Maybe it is just listed as an etiqeutte thing and the hand is not dead, but I did think it was a rule.

If it is then the ruling is wrong, if not then c'est la vie.

MadsL

Maybe it is just listed as an etiqeutte thing

Bit bigger than etiquette (spell Czechs) - surely this is (or should be) a standard anti-collusion rule, esp. in a big buy-in event.

carrigeen

surely this is not allowed

i thought and stand to be corrected that it was a standard rule re mobiles. i know the wsop is that way and i believe wpt is (not a 100% on that one).

if its not a standard rule I still think it is so low and dont get me wrong I have been the victim of some excellent speechplay recently where i got talked into a pot and all i could do aftrewards was congratulate the player (it was very good ) but using a mobile i dont think so

RoundTower

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this. If it's unethical for him to pretend to be on the phone it should be unethical for you to steal his blinds because he's on the phone, which is ridiculous.

Having said that many events now consider your hand is dead if you use a mobile phone at the table. For example according to the rules posted here recently Pokerevents do. This rule isn't standard but it is becoming quite common.

delanec8

I don't see a problem with this, obviously disregarding what the actual ruling is. Its the same as the big blind talking to someone on another table or leaning back and looking completely uninterested

Kinetic^

Yeah that's pretty crap. I always keep my phone on silent anyway, no way I'd answer a call while playing (even at a home game) as I think it's pretty rude tbh.

jtsuited

connie147 wrote:

after checking his cards he sits back and makes or takes a phone call

This changes a lot. If he was answering a call he's being quite ignorant and inconsiderate, but if he made a phone call, he's an absolute knobjockey

Lafortezza

Is/was it in the tournament rules that taking/answering a phonecall is wrong?
Was he actually pretending to be on the phone or did he actually make/answer his phone?

connie147

lafortezza wrote:

Is/was it in the tournament rules that taking/answering a phonecall is wrong?
Was he actually pretending to be on the phone or did he actually make/answer his phone?

Yes,definately in the rules and announced on the microphone before play started.
Dont know if it was a genuine phone call or a pretend one, but im pretty sure the plan was to show no interest in the hand.Jesus,if I looked down at aces in my BB my phone could ring for 10 mins and I wouldnt answer it.I do think the ruling was affected by the fact that it was a name player.I didnt argue my case at the table cause TD's decisions are final and I didnt want to cause hassle,but if the roles were reversed im in no doubt that my hand would have been folded(and I would have accepted it).

connie147

karlh wrote:

who did it?

I dont like naming nmames on a public forum,if you really wanna know,pm me.

RoundTower

connie147 wrote:

I dont like naming nmames on a public forum,if you really wanna know,pm me.

I'm much more interested to know who was the TD since as far as I'm concerned the player did nothing wrong. Name and shame the TD.

BrokenArrows

I would never assume a player is out of the hand just because they are on the phone.

Unless he was standing away from the table and came back just as his turn came up.

connie147

RoundTower wrote:

I'm much more interested to know who was the TD since as far as I'm concerned the player did nothing wrong. Name and shame the TD.

If the player did nothing wrong,how can the TD be named and shamed?Sure the TD must have made the correct decision if as you say the player did nothing wrong.

nicnicnic

connie147 wrote:

Yes,definately in the rules and announced on the microphone before play started.
..........................
I didnt want to cause hassle,but if the roles were reversed im in no doubt that my hand would have been folded(and I would have accepted it).

Definitely announced and agree totally with your assumption relating to the role reversal. think i probably would of caused a lot of hassle.

DeVore

Connie I was there and my heart did go out to you. To be fair to the TD I think it is a bit closer then people here realise.

Situation as I understand it is that Player A in on BB and Connie on button. Before it came to his turn Connie noticed that the player seems to have a phone call going and moves in to steal his blind. Player A, who I spoke to immediately after the ruling, told me (quite embarrasedly) that his phone had rung, he had earphones in and thus it autoanswered the call. I have no evidence to believe or disbelieve that so I take him at his word.

This is where things become unclear. The player in question realised his earphones were speaking to him and spoke into the mic "I'm in a hand I gotta go". Its critical to any decision I would make if the conversation was longer then that.

In support of Connie it WAS announced that any use of a phone would cause your hand to be dead. I've seen the TD in question enforce that rule many times.

In support of Player A, the rule is there (in part) to avoid any extra information arriving at the table (from, say, a friend who is positioned behind players at the table and seen their cards...) and obviously he wasnt going to do anything else with Aces preflop in the situation he was in (shortish stacked and with two players all in before him).

I think the TD in question tried to find the fairest solution to a impossible situation. My decision would have to rest on how long the player was on the phone. If it was a quick "I can't talk now" (as the TD was told) then I let the player off with a warning and 10 minutes away from the table. If it was a conversation beyond "I'm in a hand I have to go", then the hand would be killed.

Did this arise before or after the rest of the hand was played out?

DeV.

nicnicnic

DeVore wrote:

In support of Player A, the rule is there (in part) to avoid any extra information arriving at the table (from, say, a friend who is positioned behind players at the table and seen their cards...)


conversation beyond "I'm in a hand I have to go", then the hand would be killed.


DeV.

think the rule has to be definitive, the length of the phone call or conversation cant have a bearing on the decision. Hypothetically the recipient doesn't have to say anything to be told connie has K 4.

careca

nicnicnic wrote:

think the rule has to be definitive, the length of the phone call or conversation cant have a bearing on the decision. hypnotically the recipient doesn't have to say anything to be told connie has K 4.

I agree with this. When I read the rules beforehand (as a dealer) I was a bit surprised with this one as I have often used my phone in the Fitz (albeit in a 20eu rebuy). I totally understand the rule and think its a good one. Because I hadn't seen it before I asked how strictly enforced it should be. I was told 100% compliance but that if someone's phone rang during the hand, to inform them that they would be out of the hand if they answered it. All players at the table seemed to be aware of this at the start of the tournament.

As someone else said though, wouldn't blame the player at all. TD owned up to his mistake and thats fair enough.

Jaden

Sticky one here. What is the official Pokerevents line when it comes to MTTs and mobiles?

As a side, while the BB could be regarded as a bit of a c**t, pushing 20K into a 3K pot when you "think" he's not interested is a bit suspect.

RoundTower

connie147 wrote:

If the player did nothing wrong,how can the TD be named and shamed?Sure the TD must have made the correct decision if as you say the player did nothing wrong.

No. I don't think there's anything wrong about a player using a mobile phone during the hand, whether this kills his hand or not. I do have a problem with a TD who announces clearly "if you use the phone during a hand your hand is dead" and then selectively enforcing this based on how long the phone call is or who the player in question is.

strewelpeter

RoundTower wrote:

....I do have a problem with a TD who announces clearly "if you use the phone during a hand your hand is dead" and then selectively enforcing this based on how long the phone call is or who the player in question is.

I'd be a lot more concerned about this than I would be about what the travel and expenses arrangements for dealers were.

You either have rules or you don't. If you have you stick to them.
I don't like the room for manouvere that Dev tried to introduce. Yea I know it would be harsh on the guy who just happened to have his phone plugged into his ear when it happened to go off and happened to be set to answer automatically just when he happened to have a hand.
It sounds very much to me like the wiggle room was made to fit the 'well known player'...there seems to have been quite a bit of bending over backwards to accomodate the well known names over the weekend...and theres nothing wrong with that as long as there aren't different rules for them and us.

If it was me and I had left the table and then found out that there was a clearly stated rule that said mobile use == dead hand then I'd be looking for more than just my money back. If I was aware of such a rule in advance they'd need all those spare dealers to drag me kicking and screaming from the table.

Hitman Actual

Jaden wrote:

As a side, while the BB could be regarded as a bit of a c**t, pushing 20K into a 3K pot when you "think" he's not interested is a bit suspect.

He has 10BBs... standard enough steal with KJ in LP imo, especially if he thinks the BB isn't interested. Just unlucky to run into a hand (whatever about the controversy!).

connie147

DeVore wrote:

Connie I was there and my heart did go out to you. To be fair to the TD I think it is a bit closer then people here realise.

Situation as I understand it is that Player A in on BB and Connie on button. Before it came to his turn Connie noticed that the player seems to have a phone call going and moves in to steal his blind. Player A, who I spoke to immediately after the ruling, told me (quite embarrasedly) that his phone had rung, he had earphones in and thus it autoanswered the call. I have no evidence to believe or disbelieve that so I take him at his word.

This is where things become unclear. The player in question realised his earphones were speaking to him and spoke into the mic "I'm in a hand I gotta go". Its critical to any decision I would make if the conversation was longer then that.

In support of Connie it WAS announced that any use of a phone would cause your hand to be dead. I've seen the TD in question enforce that rule many times.

In support of Player A, the rule is there (in part) to avoid any extra information arriving at the table (from, say, a friend who is positioned behind players at the table and seen their cards...) and obviously he wasnt going to do anything else with Aces preflop in the situation he was in (shortish stacked and with two players all in before him).

I think the TD in question tried to find the fairest solution to a impossible situation. My decision would have to rest on how long the player was on the phone. If it was a quick "I can't talk now" (as the TD was told) then I let the player off with a warning and 10 minutes away from the table. If it was a conversation beyond "I'm in a hand I have to go", then the hand would be killed.

Did this arise before or after the rest of the hand was played out?

DeV.

HI dev,
I can only tell it as i saw it.Player A was on his phone prior to I making my decision.(was chatting)and it wasnt until sb made his decision that BB ended his call.My point is he knew he had aces but didnt end his call until both I and sb made our play.All im asking is--was this just very crafty or was it outside the rules. In fairness to the TD,he did only get the info you got as well,(I wasnt gonna stand up at the table and cause a scene over it),and it was only afterwards when I gave my account to him that he accepted he could have made a different decidion.I was not involved in calling the TD to the table,it was between the dealer and player A.

DeVore

Firstly I'd like to point out that I wasnt the TD

If the player simply had pulled out his phone and talked on it then imho there is no question but that the hand would be dead. The reasoning behind my "wiggle room" (as its been referred to) is that the TD is not there to be a lawyer for a player who wants to enforce a fair rule in an unfair manner.

The TD's first and stated prupose is to ensure as best as possible that all players are treated fairly and that the rules are applied fairly too.

My concern here is not about a well known player, its about being as even handed as possible. The player shouldnt be punished for his phone going off, or for his mistake in not disconnecting the headphones. However if he was a willing participant in the conversation over a period of time... hand dead. End of.

The difference is that in one case its an understandable mistake, in the other is flaunting the rules.

How unfair would it be if YOU (the reader) were sitting on AA, two men have gone all in before you, you are about to nail them when you're phone rings and before you can tell the person to feck off, you're hand is dead. I think there might be some threads here about that too
I appreciate this wasnt what happened, but its what the TD *thought* had happened.

Finally I think TD's need to have wiggle room, in fact I think the state of affairs on the String Bet rule are scandalous, I cant remember the last time it was called on a player genuinely and not because the person wanted a cheap card. Its being abused WORSE then string betting would be if it were completely allowed.

DeV.

Shortstack

As far as I am concerned if it was announced that using a mobile phone was against the rules and your hand would be dead if you did use one then I would enforce the rule.

The player with the phone should not have had his headset connected in the first place then he would not have 'auto-answered' the phone.

Yes he is never going to fold AA but rules are rules and there is no point having them if you don't apply them evenly.

Being in a situation where you rule one way for one person and another way for another is not good.

I agree with all the comments on string bets but unlike most people here I have seen it used on more than one occassion for what I suspect to be less than innocent purposes. At the end of the day it is not exactly difficult to bet properly.

AllIn

Connie,
I was in a similar situation in the PE January event when I was the one with the phone in my hand. I wasn't even taking a call I was entering in someones number into the phonebook who was at the table. I had KJs in SB with a few callers and announced call. The dealer mucked my hand saying I cant be on the phone. I looked for a ruling and was asked by the TD had I the phone in my hand, if so my cards were dead.

What really annoyed me was that looking round the room later I saw several "known players" and "pros" taking calls while playing hands.:mad:

There cant be one rule for some and a different one for others depending who the person is!

I agree there has to be some "wiggle room" or common sense applied. But not when 2 peoples tournament is on the line.

Goodluck2me

the official rule was that when you answer your phone you must step away from the table and your hand is mucked. i had a situation in the main event where a player went all in and was called when his phone rang but i made sure he didnt answer his phone then. its hard to be to draconian too though if your phone is set to auto-answer.

strewelpeter

I hear what you are saying Dev, a TD has got to be able to apply the rules in a way that is even handed and that allows for the complicated situations that come up.
But when is a rule not a rule?
What you say about string bets is spot on, but that is the way its gotta be because otherwise people start bending and stretching the rules as far as they can. But it is a rule, everyone knows it is a rule and everyone forgets it occasionally but they will find it fairly applied to everyone in every pot. As you say no one is going to try using string betting for an advantage because they know that it would be a waste of time...they are going to be picked up on it immediately. Likewise I would say that the same should go for any similar rule , and I do believe that the mobile phone rule (no matter how much more sinister using it for advantage would be) is there for the same reason.
Once there are rules they are part of the game. A while ago I was at a PE event and was sitting at the table looking at my cards for a good while when the action came around to me the dealer took my cards and told me I wasn't sitting when the first card was dealt. Fair enough. Much later at the biz end of a Sng the button arrives back in his seat in time for his second card to be dealt and he tries to steal my Blinds and the dealer is allowing him to. Now call me a Bollix if you like but I'm having the same rule applied now as was applied earlier. And I was a total bollix about it and when the stewards enquiry was over it turned out that different dealers had been told different things.

The bottom line for me is I would like a rule book so that I know where I stand, sure leave room for TD to interpret and apply fairly but I want at least a framework to refer to.
Connie is a very restrained man, fair play to you for not causing a scene, I do admire your attitude but I think you were treated very unfairly.

connie147

strewelpeter wrote:

I hear what you are saying Dev, a TD has got to be able to apply the rules in a way that is even handed and that allows for the complicated situations that come up.
But when is a rule not a rule?
What you say about string bets is spot on, but that is the way its gotta be because otherwise people start bending and stretching the rules as far as they can. But it is a rule, everyone knows it is a rule and everyone forgets it occasionally but they will find it fairly applied to everyone in every pot. As you say no one is going to try using string betting for an advantage because they know that it would be a waste of time...they are going to be picked up on it immediately. Likewise I would say that the same should go for any similar rule , and I do believe that the mobile phone rule (no matter how much more sinister using it for advantage would be) is there for the same reason.
Once there are rules they are part of the game. A while ago I was at a PE event and was sitting at the table looking at my cards for a good while when the action came around to me the dealer took my cards and told me I wasn't sitting when the first card was dealt. Fair enough. Much later at the biz end of a Sng the button arrives back in his seat in time for his second card to be dealt and he tries to steal my Blinds and the dealer is allowing him to. Now call me a Bollix if you like but I'm having the same rule applied now as was applied earlier. And I was a total bollix about it and when the stewards enquiry was over it turned out that different dealers had been told different things.

The bottom line for me is I would like a rule book so that I know where I stand, sure leave room for TD to interpret and apply fairly but I want at least a framework to refer to.
Connie is a very restrained man, fair play to you for not causing a scene, I do admire your attitude but I think you were treated very unfairly.

The reason I was "restrained" is because I run my own card club and Im a sticker on the tournament directors ruling being the final say.Where as I mightnt agree with the decision made,Id only question it in private.I was disappointed that player A didnt give an honest account of the length of phone call,but hey,if it was a tactic,he played it brilliantly and maybe I should have made my views known.But its not my style.