Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Tournament Poker > Tournament Circuit/WSOP
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:42 PM
Steve Brecher Steve Brecher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45
Default The \"F-Bomb\" Rule

An email that I sent to Denny Williams, TD at the Bicycle Casino, on Sep. 4; in the email, I used the literal word at issue, which 2+2 replaces with "[censored]":

Denny,

As reported on the cardplayer.com blog covering the Legends of Poker WPT tournament:
---------------------------------------
Tue Aug 28 16:49:51 PDT 2007
David Pham Bluffs Daniel Montagnolli

With approximately 190,000 in the pot and the final board showing K10589, David 'The Dragon' Pham bets 120,000, and Daniel Montagnolli goes into the tank for several minutes. Montagnolli finally folds, flashing A-K. Someone asks Pham to show the bluff, and Pham shows A7 for ace high.

At this point, there was some confusion. Daniel Montagnolli apparently said "What!" but the dealer heard the F-bomb. Montagnolli is European, and speaks with a pretty heavy accent, and a few players admitted they thought he said "what" as well. But the dealer was sitting right next to him (Montagnolli was in Seat 9), and the ruling held. Montagnolli is now sitting out for nine hands.
---------------------------------------

Daniel was in seat 9; I was in seat 4. Daniel is a young, polite player apparently visiting from another country. I thought he said, softly and to himself, "[censored]!", but since this incident is only an example it doesn't matter whether that was what he said; let's assume it was what he said.

I was so incensed by the injustice of the penalty that he was given that I announced to the room at large that I would not return to the Bicycle Casino for another tournament unless that rule -- the "F-Bomb rule" -- is eliminated.

Here is the background of that decision and my reasoning about the rule:

I fully support what I infer is the underlying motivation for the rule, i.e., to forbid and, if necessary, to penalize abusive and disruptive behavior.

To, I assume, that end, the Bicycle Casino includes this rule 2.b on the back of its structure sheet: "Foul and abusive language is not condoned at The Bicycle Casino. Any player who is heard using the "F---" word in any form will receive a minimum of a penalty." (I'm not sure what "a minimum of a penalty" means, but that's a separate issue.)

This rule is...

1. Over-specific. It is foolish to single out and emphasize one word. There are many other words and phrases which are just as, if not more, obscene, offensive, etc.

2. Obsolete. Within the last decade or so, occurrences of the word "[censored]" have become, if not frequent, at least not unusual in mainstream print publications such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly (and, obviously, movies and other media). These days it would indeed be a rare poker player of either sex who is genuinely offended or disturbed by a mere utterance of "[censored]" that is not intended to offend.

3. Mis-targeted. It is not the utterance of a word, but a type of behavior that should be forbidden. Injustice results from the targeting error.

4. (As a result of 1-3) Childish. At the beginning of each tournament when the TD announces this rule, I feel like I'm in kindergarten rather than at an adult professional event. After the rule is announced, I usually make an announcement of my own, "So you're not allowed say Fold?!" to emphasize the silliness of the rule.

My guess is that the "F-Bomb" rule is a misguided attempt to remove discretion. Where floor discretion can be removed, that is good; but to remove it where it is required is not good and results in injustices such as the example above. I suggest that rule 2.b (on the back of the event structure sheet) be amended to read as follows:

"Foul and abusive behavior or language directed at any other player or staff is not tolerated at The Bicycle Casino. In accordance with TDA rule 7, penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents."

This suggestion changes "not condoned" to "not tolerated," adds the "directed at" phrase, and replaces the "F-Bomb" clause with an appropriately more general one that comes directly from a TDA rule.

Thanks for your consideration,

Steve
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.