[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said in my original post that what he did is not against the rules. My question is was it unethical. The way swapping large percentages is unethical.

(Edited to take out an example that acutally is against the rules)

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it might be against the rules depending upon what rules they are using and how strictly they are interpreting them. But Rule 37 of the TDA states:

[ QUOTE ]
Verbally disclosing the contents of your hand or advising a player how to play a hand may result in a penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, Hachem did advise another player how to play a hand. But given that there is a TD right there I think he should have stepped in and reminded the players that they cannot disuss their hand or advise others what to do. But it would have to be an outright abuse of the rules for a player to be penalized on a final table of an event like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reading this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the rules aren't very clear and aren't followed very consistently.

It's hard to argue that in the broadest sense Hachem wasn't "advising a player how to play a hand." But this happens all the time. What Hachem did is not much different than a player asking another player if he wants a call, or asking another player if he has a big draw and getting a response. We see that all the time in real life and on TV (remember when Matusow told Andy Black to fold his KJo against Tex Barch?). If it's okay in those situations, it seems okay in this one. Who the advice helps is not super-relevant as long as the advice isn't clearly designed to help the adviser's friend gain an unfair advantage.

Also, rule 34 says:

"Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play."

If "discussing a hand" means discussing a specific hand, then there is no rules violation, but if you take a broader interpretation you could conclude there was a violation. However, if you do that, then you'd have to ban all table talk about the hand in play. Even musing aloud about what does your opponent have would not be allowed. Remember Sheikan (sp?) jumped up in reaction to the flopping of an ace and Matusow flipped out at him? As I recall, he got a penalty despite not using any words (and MM got a F-bomb penalty).

It seems to me that the only way to enact any rule stopping all but the most egregious violations would be a total ban on talking. On a selfish level, I would benefit from a rule that required silence during a hand. Verbal communication when I'm in a hand has never been one of my strengths. But that rule would take a lot away from the game of poker, both for people who can use talking as a weapon, and for TV coverage.