David Singer

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but the practical, day-to-day way the rules were enforced is not worthless, and that reflected the same policy as the loudspeaker announcements and was not based on the arcane language of the rulebook that no one sees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Verbal, written, who cares? If other ppl had their hands declared dead throughout the previous events in the WSOP, for just TOUCHING their cell phones, then this one should of been too.

In other words, if it had been interpreted as such before in previous instances, then it should of been this time to.

Other wise it begs the question now, can all the other players who's hands were declared dead who didn't make the money, can they now appeal to have THEIR money refunded, because they didn't get paid on key hands where their hands were declared dead for just touching their cell phones?

FWIW, I think it's stupid that ppl just can't either turn off their phones prior to starting, or let the damm thing ring until their finished with the hands.

I've done it a number of times, where I just let me cell phone ring, even when I was on call (I'm a Telecommunications Technician by trade) for that week, when it rang when I was in the middle of the hand.

I then simply checked once I was finished with the hand, to see if the call was important enough to call back or wait until later.

Also, everyone I know, knows pretty much when I'm playing in a major event and can't be disturbed. They know if I don't answer my phone, I must still be playing, and that I will get back to them on a break or something.

[daviddaneshgar]

i would like to give my opinion on this,,, i have been in this situation before too... i understand that it is a little difficult to enfore the rule, and the rule is the rule but if someone clicks there phone off and singer right away asks for his hand to be dead i think this is ridiculous... i mean of course he gave away the strength of his hand but i think he did it because he knew he was going to get called and he wanted to just have a no risk win. i mean if the guy just pressed a button and the director had determined that in doing so he could not have send or recieved information then thats the end of the story. u give the guy a warning or penalty after the hand and david is eliminated. i mean he also had a 50-50 shot to win the hand too.. would he be complaining to give the guy his chips back if he won.. i view this as an angle and would literally be disgusted if he were able to play another day 1.. are u kidding me... just my 2 cents

[Crane]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of sympathy for David's position. Here's a similar one that happened to me on Day 1B. How would you rule on this one?

Last hand of Level 3, so a lot of noise and chatter as people are heading out for dinner break. I was in the big blind and got a free play with my K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in a three-way pot. The flop had been checked all round, the turn had been bet by the last player and called by me and the other player. The final board was something like KJ986, all black (the cards did not arrive in that exact order, btw--this is just the best I can recall at this point). I checked, the second player checked, the third player bets out. As I'm considering what to do, the second player's cellphone rings. He picks it up, says "Hello, I'll call you back," and puts it down. The dealer declares his hand dead. Player #2 complains about the ruling. Player #3 and I ask the dealer to call a floorperson over. The dealer recounts the situation accurately, and the floor without hesitation rules that Player #2's hand is dead. This made my decision to call much easier--Player #3 had bluffed with some kind of draw that didn't get there, so I won. Player #2 was very upset, claiming that his draw had gotten there, he would have won a big pot, etc.

Unlike the David Singer situation, I thought this one was very clear, and the ruling to be correct and consistent. But how much of a stretch is it from this situation to David's? It's not so different; the player's cell phone rings, and the player reacts to it, by operating the device in some manner. In David's case, for all we know, his opponent was able to read an incoming text during the time he took to silence the phone (without knowing more details, such as what cell phone model, whether silencing necessitates the user to interact with the screen/UI of the phone, etc, it's hard to be sure whether this is a possible situation--but it could happen).

I think David has a legitimate case to be made here, especially since it appears he acted in a very timely fashion to have the hand declared dead, and ran the risk of revealing information about his hand in the process. What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him a refund, or a free entry to the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things:

First, this post points out the extreme stupidity of the whole situation. How on earth can you declare someone's hand dead in the middle of a hand! Especially in the situation described. It is the equivalent of playing a three-handed pot and having the third man to act fold out of turn. Not only does this take away protection from the bettor, but it makes it easier (as in the above case) for the second person to call.

I don't understand how you can contrive a situation like this to interfer with the integrity of the game.

My first thought in this situation is for floor to say, just continue the hand and I'll rule after it's over. Two people got screwed in this hand--the bettor and the third guy. The middle man got a free dessert. Outlandish.

Second:

Player A bets. Player B is thinking and he sees (or hears) his phone ring. He looks at it and it's a text message saying that the guy is bluffing--call!

Who is sending this text message? Is it a spectator on the rail? Another player? How is this cheating actually supposed to be taking place? I don't get it.

One thing they could do is just announce at the beginning of the tournament--Ladies and gentlemen. All cell phones will now be turned off. Phones that ring will be confiscated.

I know it's probably dumb, but this whole thing is dumb. Dumb and dumber.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
Verbal, written, who cares? If other ppl had their hands declared dead throughout the previous events in the WSOP, for just TOUCHING their cell phones, then this one should of been too.

In other words, if it had been interpreted as such before in previous instances, then it should of been this time to.

Other wise it begs the question now, can all the other players who's hands were declared dead who didn't make the money, can they now appeal to have THEIR money refunded, because they didn't get paid on key hands where their hands were declared dead for just touching their cell phones?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why there should be no rules lawyering over interpretations. Every dealer and every floor person may make a different call. There is no way to achieve perfection and consistency in all decisions. Even if improperly applied in the past, they should try to follow the written rules as much as possible.

It was a resonable call, and upon review the reasonableness was confirmed. So the ruling should stand.

We have all been in situations where random circumstances affect the outcome. I get pulled over for speeding, and you going 10 MPH faster do not. Should I cry about it? Should my speeding violation be voided because the two of us were not treated exactly the same?

David Singer should grow up. He took a shot at a freeroll and he lost. Move on.

[MaverickUSC]

[ QUOTE ]
What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him [censored], or a two hour penalty in the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but the practical, day-to-day way the rules were enforced is not worthless, and that reflected the same policy as the loudspeaker announcements and was not based on the arcane language of the rulebook that no one sees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean some rulebook but rather a printed sheet of paper with the standard tourney rules on them (drop an f-bomb and get a penalty, cards on the floor - penalty, chips in pocket are out of play, etc, etc. - like we get here in LA at practically every tourney. Hand them out to every player as they get their seat card and no one can have any complaints when they break a rule. Just make sure that the way the rule is written doesn't leave wiggle room such as "if you USE your cellphone..."

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
We have all been in situations where random circumstances affect the outcome. I get pulled over for speeding, and you going 10 MPH faster do not. Should I cry about it? Should my speeding violation be voided because the two of us were not treated exactly the same?

David Singer should grow up. He took a shot at a freeroll and he lost. Move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your metaphor is inaccurate:

I get pulled over for speeding 10 MPH over. I get a $400 ticket. I find out that every other person pulled over for 10 MPH at that exact spot got a $200 ticket. I want my ticket reduced.

[Bingo_Boy]

[ QUOTE ]
Every dealer and every floor person may make a different call. There is no way to achieve perfection and consistency in all decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of having a rule is that it can be applied consistently by and for everyone. Otherwise you may as well let the dealers make it up as they go along.

[RainierBob]

Ideally we would have clear rules uniformly enforced. Incidents like this one show up deficiencies in both the clarity of the rule, how the rulebook wording is publicized, and how enforcement. All these things can and ought to be improved.

In the meanwhile a ruling has to be made in the instant case. From the description of the circumstances, I think the ruling made was the best choice. Clearly Harrah's went to some pains to see whether the "use" of the phone entailed any intent to get illegal information or otherwise influence play. The result was negative. On the other hand, we can't be sure whether Singer had an intent to give himself a freeroll, but a ruling in his favor would obviously have had that effect.