We Interrupt This Call . . .

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll have to speculate on what other things you meant that you're not allowed to do in a cardroom, but any habit can be changed if a rule is made which is both farily applied and enforced

[/ QUOTE ]

We can include all types of major and minor things in this. You cannot throw a rack at the dealer, you certainly will be asked to leave, but you cannot kill a player's hand for this. You may not expose your hand in a multiway pot, again a player's hand is not declared dead for this.

Maybe I have been less than clear in this thread. I will not allow someone to talk on the phone at the table. Answering and putting someone on hold is an acceptable way of dealing with a phone call when not in a card room, so wh wouldn't it be in a card room also.

An arbitrary rule cannot be fairly applied and enforced. Everyday it will be somebody's first time in your cardroom, if they have a pot taken away becaus eof some phone rule they most likely will not be back. We strive to make sure that all rulings are made in the interest of fairness (best hand wins etc), so why would we make a rule that can kill a player's hand and award money to the second best hand?

edit to add: You can add your final thought if you want, I believe everything constructive I woudl have to add on this point has been said.

RR

[jfk]

Randy,

Clearly you're motivated by maintaining fairness and for that it is hard to be critical. As you describe your room's rule it seems fair and reasonable.

The room in which I most regularly play has the same rule. Unfortunately it is laxly applied, hence my wish for a less tolerant standard.

Thanks for your thoughts in the thread.

[Mustafa]

I am not for taking anyone's money either, but I don't see how it's any easier to apply the "you have to hang up or put them on hold now" rule than it is to apply the "don't answer while you in a hand" rule.

Personally, I'm all for the 1 warning rule. You tell them the first time that they have to put the call on hold while they finish the hand and when they come back, you let them know that if they answer their phone, their hand will be dead. At that point they are making an informed choice.

Eventually, you will curtail the behavior. Of course I also think that eventually, call phones won't be allowed at restaurants either, but I live in a dream world free of self-centered ignorant people.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I also think that eventually, call phones won't be allowed at restaurants either, but I live in a dream world free of self-centered ignorant people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the end of this sentence rather funny as there's really no difference between someone having a cell phone conversation and having a regular conversation. Unless you go to one of those "no talking" restaurants I'm hearing so much about.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'm all for the 1 warning rule. You tell them the first time that they have to put the call on hold while they finish the hand and when they come back, you let them know that if they answer their phone, their hand will be dead. At that point they are making an informed choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whos keeps track of whether or not they have gotten this warning?

[ QUOTE ]
I am not for taking anyone's money either, but I don't see how it's any easier to apply the "you have to hang up or put them on hold now" rule than it is to apply the "don't answer while you in a hand" rule.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is a policy not a rule. If someone lights a cigarette in a non-smoking room should they have a dead hand? No, they are told to put out the cigarette.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course I also think that eventually, call phones won't be allowed at restaurants either, but I live in a dream world free of self-centered ignorant people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the end of this sentence rather funny as there's really no difference between someone having a cell phone conversation and having a regular conversation. Unless you go to one of those "no talking" restaurants I'm hearing so much about.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is a difference. people on cell-phones in restaurants are typically louder than they are in regular conversation without realizing it.

It's incredibly rude and obnoxious.

If I'm in a restaurant or coffee-place or something and my phone rings I will typically either let it go to voice-mail or I will step outside or somewhere more private to accept the call.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
there's really no difference between someone having a cell phone conversation and having a regular conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the basis of this whole thread, and it's simply not true.

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyday it will be somebody's first time in your cardroom, if they have a pot taken away becaus eof some phone rule they most likely will not be back.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the first 4-5 times I played at Monte Carlo they asked me if it was my first time there. When a player says, 'yes' they explain a few basic rules. Explaining the cell phone rule should be one of them.

Ruling a hand dead for answering a call is extreme however, if the player is told up-front and they do it more than once, then it is completey acceptable. I don't see why an informed adult should be allowed to selectively choose to break stated rules without ramifications.

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]

I find the end of this sentence rather funny as there's really no difference between someone having a cell phone conversation and having a regular conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Volume? For some reason many people on cell phones believe they have to shout when on a call. OK, maybe not shout but certainly the volume goes up compared to speaking with a diner sitting across from them.

[grdred944]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a policy not a rule. If someone lights a cigarette in a non-smoking room should they have a dead hand? No, they are told to put out the cigarette.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a rule and in some cases (places) the law. Regardless, what if that same person keeps lighting up? Should they be able to get a few puffs in whenever they want until the floor repeatedly tells them to put it out or should they get one strike and then be out - as in hand killed or tossed out?