APAT National Championships: Rule change

[TightEnd]

Rule 65 Clarification

After a controversial situation at the recent GUKPT Brighton (Frazer/De Mel) with  speech-play (a player stating "I will have to call if you bet" out of turn before his opponent had acted on the river) and whether this "conditional statement of intent" was or wasn"t binding, I took a look at the APAT rules.

http://www.apat.com/termsandconditions.php

APAT Rule 65 states:

"Player's verbal declarations in turn are binding.  Action out of turn may be binding."

The GUKPT rule which caused the problem states:

"rule 44 Verbal declarations in turn are binding, verbal declarations out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed when it is their turn to act, check, call or fold is not considered an action change. "

Rule 30 of TDA is identical to the GUKPT rule 44 out of interest:

APAT's own rule "action out of turn may be binding" needs to be strengthened and has been changed as follows:


"Verbal declarations in turn are binding, DEFINITIVE verbal declarations out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed when it is their turn to act. Check, call or fold is not considered an action change. "


By definitive we mean "I WILL call" or variations thereof such as "I have to call if you bet" not "I Might call" or similar.

We believe that asking an opponent what they are going to do if a certain course of action is taken (e.g will you call if I bet?) or volunteering the information out of turn (i.e that one intends to call if a bet is made), is unethical and repeated violators should be punished. We are in favour of banter, but keep it within certain boundaries, which is what we are seeking to do by updating this rule, to reduce confusion for players in our live championship events, as to what is permitted and what is not in the area of conditional intent.

APAT's rules will be available for all to view at Walsall, and have been updated on the site.

We also continue, behind the scenes as an Association, to use our best endeavours to moved towards standardised rules across different compnaies/venues to reduce confusion for players. More progress reports on this in due course

[RioRodent]

I might be missing something here, but...

"Verbal declarations in turn are binding, DEFINITIVE verbal declarations out of turn will be binding if the action to that player has not changed when it is their turn to act. Check, call or fold is not considered an action change. "

I am second to act... I say, "Don"t do it, I"ll call if you bet!!"

1st to act now goes all-in... since the action to me has changed i.e. 1st to act did not "Check, Call or Fold"... then it would seem I don"t have to call. Oui?

The only "definitive" verbal declaration that would be binding would be something like... "If you don"t bet/raise... I won"t bet/re-raise." Since not betting, or not raising, or folding are the only actions which do not change the action to subsequent players. Oui also?

[TightEnd]

It refers to any action change between player A making the bet , with Player C saying for example "I will call if you bet" and Player C"s turn to act...such if Player A bets then the action changes, eg Player B raises, then Player C"s verbal statement is not binding

[RioRodent]

OK....... I think I understand the point you are making.

[TightEnd]

OK....... I think I understand the point you are making.

I hope so, the wording at the end of the rule is for multiway pots.

In a heads up pot player B says "you bet, I call" and Player A bets then Player B has to call


the point here is that player B"s speechplay is in effect making a blocking bet/trying to limit the action or get Player A to check. This, in our opinion, is not wholly ethical  

[RioRodent]

OK....... I think I understand the point you are making.

I hope so, the wording at the end of the rule is for multiway pots.

In a heads up pot player B says "you bet, I call" and Player A bets then Player B has to call


the point here is that player B"s speechplay is in effect making a blocking bet/trying to limit the action or get Player A to check. This, in our opinion, is not wholly ethical  

I think you should have stopped when you were ahead... surely this heads-up example you have made contradicts what the rule actually says?

[TightEnd]

OK....... I think I understand the point you are making.

I hope so, the wording at the end of the rule is for multiway pots.

In a heads up pot player B says "you bet, I call" and Player A bets then Player B has to call


the point here is that player B"s speechplay is in effect making a blocking bet/trying to limit the action or get Player A to check. This, in our opinion, is not wholly ethical  

I think you should have stopped when you were ahead... surely this heads-up example you have made contradicts what the rule actually says?

nope

Lets call it a draw and discuss over a pint in Walsall!

[duke3016]

Rule doesn"t apply to me.

1. I"m all in most hands
2. I never get to heads up
3. I"m as quiet as a church mouse at the table

OH and can I have a pint as well