The "F-Bomb" Rule

[Steve Brecher]

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

[SammySlim]

I think you are exactly right about the motive - it is intended to limit floor discretion and thereby limit the casino's exposure to players claiming they were harmed by poor floor rulings. Since the f-bomb is the most commonly uttered expletive in that situation, they reduce their exposure by making it a flat rule, notwithstanding the good reasons and suggestions you articulate.

Cheers

[DonkeyChip]

Most reasonable minds see it just as you for the reasons you wrote. The 'F-bomb rule' was changed prior to this past WSOP to read the way it should have all along...you can't direct it at anyone but it's not automatically a penalty for using it.

So in 2006 we had people muttering a commonly used word and getting a penalty and yet others making physical threats to 'take their head off' and getting nothing.

[CincyLady]

FYI, learned this from an English teacher at my son's Jr High over a decade ago. Seems when he was starting his career, he was a sub and made the mistake of telling the class, they could discuss ANYTHING. Well, one of the kids (of course), with a smirk on his face, asked the teacher what the F word meant (knowing full well what we think it to be in the general public world).

Teacher said he'd discuss it the next day, then asked a more seasoned teacher how to handle this situation.

The teacher he asked, was a specialist in the Middle ages, who then said:

Did you know that the F word is really an acronym?

Yep, seems back in the middle ages, knowledge of or even the discussion about carnal knowledge (sex) was forbidden, with harsh penalties for breaking the law.

Hence the invention of the 'F' Word which stood for:

Fundemental
Unlawful
Carnal
Knowledge

There you have it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, you'd be amazed when you tell people this, how it changes their view of the word in question.

[Steve Brecher]

Alas, the charming acronymous origin of the word in question is an urban legend; more specifically, it is false. I would provide the snopes.com URL, but it includes the word in question and hence cannot be posted on this enlightened forum.

[JennFox]

[censored], you are so right. oh whoops. its censored here too. looks like no one is going to be winning the f-word battle any time soon.. bc the f-word espcially is still another level of offensive to certain groups of people...

not me, tho. just sayin.. [censored]!!

[Kevmath]

I seem to recall that Denny's the person who originated the F-Bomb rule several years ago. Seems Big Denny may need to look over that TDA rule book and make the appropriate adjustment.

[RR]

I think in that venue that the F-word rule is a good rule. I was at the Bike when Denny introduced this word. Historically the players in that venue will do whatever bad conduct it takes to get a penalty so putting it where a player swears is a good place to put it. I have seen many dealers assaulted there. A lot of people criticize it as not looking at intent, but remember that many of the tournament dealers (not the top section dealers I just mentioned in B&M)there cannot speak English, but can be taught in the pre-shift meetings to recognize the f-word and call the floor over.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

I feel imminently qualified to post about this. I was the chief proponent of the F-Bomb rule at the 2005 WSOP. At the time I felt it was a good rule and thought that it would help to "mainstream" poker. I still feel this way.

BUT>>>>>>>>>

Enforcement of this rule is near impossible and shifts the burden to the players and the dealer, which is not a good situation. A lengthy discussion about this rule ensued at a high profile meeting I was in with several well respected TD's. No consensus was ever reached, and the point was argued ad nasaeum. I now feel that intent and context are more important than the word itself. I have waffled on this, and still struggle with the issues on both sides of this. I think I said a whole lot of nothing in this post.....

LOL

[phiphika1453]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel imminently qualified to post about this. I was the chief proponent of the F-Bomb rule at the 2005 WSOP. At the time I felt it was a good rule and thought that it would help to "mainstream" poker. I still feel this way.

BUT>>>>>>>>>

Enforcement of this rule is near impossible and shifts the burden to the players and the dealer, which is not a good situation. A lengthy discussion about this rule ensued at a high profile meeting I was in with several well respected TD's. No consensus was ever reached, and the point was argued ad nasaeum. I now feel that intent and context are more important than the word itself. I have waffled on this, and still struggle with the issues on both sides of this. I think I said a whole lot of nothing in this post.....

LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Johnny, I have to disagree with your reasoning on the justness of the rule. While I respect your wisdom in trying to present a clean image of poker to the public, I believe 100% that the execs at ESPN can and will project whatever image they believe will make them the most money. If it is the cursing and swearing that will bring them the most money they will by all means insert a bleep, but everyone who is anyone still knows what was said.

Which coincidentally brings us back to the matter at hand, does it matter what was actually said, or just one persons interpretation of what was said?