David Singer

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear things everyday in poker rooms that isn't true. A lot of it is instructions given by the dealers and floor staff.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[/ 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.

[SteelWheel]

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.

[Rekrul]

I also love how he acts like he had fold equity if he didn't 'give away his hand'....ppl folding top pair day 1 of WSOP? LOL!

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
i can understand singer asking to get the guy's hand dead as a desperation move, but i personally wouldn't do it. to actually believe that the guy's hand should be dead and to continue whining about it is absurd. as are most of the responses in this thread.

pressing a button on your phone to stop it from ringing during a hand is completely standard. i guess i have been lucky because i personally have done it in tournaments and in the world series a bunch of times. i have never dreamed that i could get my hand killed for doing this and no one has ever tried to get it killed.

you guys are saying the guy has to let the phone ring through while he's trying to make his decision? the rules are in place to protect fairness. killing a hand should only be done as an absolute last recourse.

-aj

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm ... what is it with ppl today that just can't stand to let a phone go unanswered? I mean for crying out loud, isn't that what voice mail is for?

So what if it rings, a rule is a rule, and if others hands had been declared dead through out the tourney for only TOUCHING one's cell phone, then this one should of been too.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the person could access text messaging is meaningless. Most phones show who is calling on the front display. Call from Number A = Call. Call from Number B = Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it with different ringtones too. The phone never has to leave your pocket for collusion to go on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then if we're so worried about that, Harrah's needs to make a no cell phone period in the poker area. Ever. Player's need to be patted down/screened for all electronic communication devices and have them removed from their person.

I'm not even really razzing your post, I'm just saying that if we're worried about collusion in such a way you mentioned, then there should be an outright ban on any communication devices in the poker area period. That would kinda suck for people who use their iPhone to listen to music at the table.

I wouldn't like that rule one bit, but if we're so worried about all these different forms of collusion, maybe an outright ban is the best way? I put a question mark there, because I don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much easier way to handle it, Harrah's should simply just fix it so that they are jamming the signals of cell phones in the Tourney area, and that the only way someone can make or get a call is to step outside the tourney area.

[Syntec87]

I really dont get this guys. THIS IS NOT AN ANGLE SHOOT. What if I disagree with ALL THE RULES of the WSOP??? Should I not use the ones that are good for me to my advantage?

What if I play straights are better than flushes, and that's how my home game plays, should I muck my flush when my opponent shows a straight b/c its a WSOP rule, not something I agree with?

Obv this is retarded and not even poker anymore, but once the rules are out, its your JOB to protect yourself as much as possible with them. You hurt your EV for no reason by not making the complaint he made b/c some guy would make it against him and we can assume some % of the time, the hand is declared dead...The rules are by definition arbitrary in this game, so how can even when we think some are stupid, we use them to help ourselves..

People dont like certain legislation in this country, they protest, but follow the current law while its in existence.
What if I believe in communal property, and steal, are you angleshooting by taking me to court? nobody in the court room will ask the prosecutor if he thinks its wrong to steal...its just a preestablished rule, that we live with until protest provokes change...

I agree with Singer's making the complaint, but upon thinking more about it I think the floor made the right call, and no refund is correct too. Doesnt mean he was wrong to bring attention to it, or be slightly frustrated, he lost a 60/40 to the floor...

lil tired lil drunk now hope its coherent

[shaniac]

[ 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.

[aislephive]

[ 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 ]

There is a difference between the noise you hear when you recieve a phone call and when you recieve a text message.

As I understand it, whenever there is a situation that falls under a "gray area" of a rule/policy, whomever is in charge makes a ruling that they think is fair, end of discussion.