Daniel Negreanu made talk of him since the publication of his last blog published yesterday.
There is this some time, Daniel had questioned the use of the glasses on the poker tables. Today, it is the use of the word referred to.
Rule number 52 of the Tournament Directors Association (TDA) reads as follows:
"players have an obligation to protect other players at any time from the tournament. Thus, that they are involved in a coup or not, they cannot: reveal their current hands or past; give advice or criticize the game opponent at any time whatsoever. read a hand that has not been disclosed."
According to him, this rule is obsolete, unserviceable and should be rewritten. In his blog, one can read: "the problem of this rule is that the TDA is unable to agree on the behaviors that go against him. There is much too much room for interpretation, which can lead a casino to apply the rule differently from another. In the end this makes more difficult their work. If the TDs cannot reach agreement on the application of this rule, how their players can know what they can say or not."
Daniel gives examples of difficult to judge sentences and shows the soft side of this rule. How to interpret phrases like: "I beat only a bluff", "I had the best hand before the flop", "I got ten pairs today and I have lost each of these hands"?
Here as you can see, the player not exactly said earlier "I had a pair of ten and I lost the hand", but still provides information that help to guess the hand he could have. Is this a legal sentence? And if he was lying? Is this ethical? The fact to say;"I would have had two pairs"respects ethics of Samurai to poker players?
Something interesting also is lost when one cannot speak to the table; the bluff. Or should some form of bluff say. As when a player goes down face an all-in on the river and his opponent asked: "Were you the flush"? The player can answer Yes or no and lie or tell the truth. He may have a straight and say he had the flush, it can bluff and claim that he had the nuts, can have the nuts and say he had the nuts. It is a question of leveling. In our opinion, speech around a poker table is as much part of the game that tells that one may have on an opponent. This adds to the art of playing poker.
Negreanu asks in closing that this rule be deleted or at least reviewed and corrected. Several known figures including Phil Hellmuth Poker have already informed the KidPoker they were OK with him.
To deepen this folder, you can listen to the debate on Radio QuadJacks.
Discuss this news on PokerCollectif forums: Negreanu questions a rule of the Tournament Directors Association
