\"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

Playing in a cash game. I'm out of the hand. The older man on my right is in the hand. His phone rings. He reaches for it.

"Don't answer that phone, sir!", warns the dealer. The old man ignores him, or didn't hear him.

The player to my left is frantic. "You'd better not answer that phone! They'll kill your hand!"

The old man is angry now. "You're not running this game!"

The player to my left is angry now, because the old man yelled at him. The old man is angry, because everyone is yelling at him.

The player in Seat 1 is oblivious to all of this. He's got his iPod earbuds in. At least, I think the earbuds are plugged into an iPod. The white wires run from his ears, disappear into his jacket, and appear to be attached to something in his shirt pocket.

My question to you: If there's a single player who might be getting fed information about the other players' hole cards (or advice on how to play a hand) via wireless transmission, whom do you think is the most likely suspect?

(Sorry, I know we've had other "Capital Punishment for cell phone use" threads. But I found the whole thing unsettling, and needed to vent.)

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

Your question is virtually a non-sequitur after the buildup.

You seem to be advocating that if you can't go cell-phone talkin' at the table, you can't go iPod listenin' either.

But the short answer: Neither is a menace; they're just varying degrees of asshat. Kill cell phone guy's hand. Standard.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

You only have to muck AA once for them to really get the message.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

I think the real reason for "no cell phone" is that it slows the game down if he is talking to his mistress while playing a hand and that a player shouting into a Nokia disrupts the normal friendly banter at the table. Getting information from someone spying over Seat 7's shoulder or running a simulation program in the hotel room is not really a concern.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kill cell phone guy's hand. Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why???

I've seen people tossed out of the room for getting into a fistfight--but first, they were allowed to finish the hand. They had money in the pot. They were not made to forfeit that money.

Players ejected for any number of reasons are allowed to finish their current hand before leaving. You can't make them forfeit the money they've put into the pot up to this point.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kill cell phone guy's hand. Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why???

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It's a rule.

2. You agree to the rules when you sit down and play.

3. You don't like the rule, find a cell-phone friendly cardroom. Or open your own. See what a great game it is with a table full of cell-phone talkers.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

I find old people with cell phones friggin hilarious.

RING RING, "Harold it's Blanche, do you need me to pick up more Metamucil?"

Seriously, what could be that urgent?

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

Everybody is missing my point. I have no problem with any rule that prohibits the use of cellphones.

My problem is with the Draconian measure of killing someone's hand for such an "offense". What's wrong with a warning? Penalty? Ejection?

Telling a guy who has $x in the pot that he's DQ'd, WHEN THAT PENALTY IS NEVER GIVEN FOR ANY OTHER SORT OF INFRACTION, is the part I have a problem with.

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with a warning?

[/ QUOTE ]
you said he got a warning.
next step is kill the hand.
whats the problem?

Re: \"Don\'t answer that phone, sir!\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody is missing my point. I have no problem with any rule that prohibits the use of cellphones.

My problem is with the Draconian measure of killing someone's hand for such an "offense". What's wrong with a warning?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I got your point.

You missed mine: it's a rule, you agreed to it by sitting down to play.

Killing a hand is hardly a death penalty. If you think using a cell phone is no big deal (as you suggest when you say "but I saw XX, and I saw YY, and nothing happened!"), then NOT using a cell phone should be no big deal.

[ QUOTE ]
WHEN THAT PENALTY IS NEVER GIVEN FOR ANY OTHER SORT OF INFRACTION

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is, of course, utterly false.

And I think you care more about the rule than you say you do. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]