Players discussing/denying chops

[RiverVadas]

I have a question regarding players discussing a prize pool deal. The way we have dealt with it in our card room is that if one player doesn't want to chop then the discussion is over.  But  is the discussion over? How can we regulate freedom of speech and conversation at the table? How should penalties be issued if any, when the same player keeps bringing it up? When is it ok to bring it up again? Thx

[chet]

You develop a House Rule that covers all the situations you have questions about.  You might want to have a discussion with the majority of your "regular" players.  Once you have done that your House Rule can be structured in such a way to resolve whatever issues you need to resolve.  One thing you need to include in your discussion is the effect of your local Tax Laws and how those laws may effect any deal made. 

For example, I know of one location where the players are allowed to make deals, but the "official" payout amounts for each position are used.  So, for example, if a deal includes 1st and 2nd place, payouts are $2,000 and $1,000 and they decide to split the money evenly and play only for the "trophy", player 1 is at a distinct tax disadvantage as his final "earnings" are $1,500 but are reported as $2,000.  Player 2 is at a distinct tax advantage as his final "earnings" are $1,500 but are reported as $1,000.

Chet

[Brian Vickers]

I have a question regarding players discussing a prize pool deal. The way we have dealt with it in our card room is that if one player doesn't want to chop then the discussion is over.  But  is the discussion over? How can we regulate freedom of speech and conversation at the table? How should penalties be issued if any, when the same player keeps bringing it up? When is it ok to bring it up again? Thx

How can we regulate freedom of speech?  The player is on private property   If I curse at a player I'm going to earn a penalty, and if i try to bully a player when I have been turned down on the chop I'm gonna earn a penalty too.

We have an obligation to protect our players from harrasment or unfair behaviour.  If a player says no to a chop proposal in my room we allow no more chop discussion until one of two things happens: 1) a player is eliminated 2) the blinds go up.  If anyone so much as says the word chop after the proposal is declined they are issued a 1-hand penalty for first offense, then escalating after that.  I don't want a player to be bullied and I don't want the other players to get in their heads that it is ok to soft-play eachother until the "chop-blocker" is eliminated.

How do we avoid a player being targetted?  This has come up at the TDA Summits in the past and the suggestion was the use of "Chop" and "No-chop" cards.  When a chop is proposed, the TD makes sure everyone understands the proposal and then gives every player two cards.  One card says "chop" and one says "no-chop" (or "yes" and "no" or "deal" or "no deal" etc.).  All players slide their votes in, the cards are scrambled, and one card at a time is turned over until a "no-chop" is flipped.  If there is a single "no-chop" we stop turning over cards and play resumes.  The reason you don't simply flip over all the cards at once is that we don't want players to know how close the vote is, because they may try to figure out who the holdout is.

[Spence]

Brian,
I think you're on the ball with some rules for how discussing a chop is handled.  You mentioned though that discussion can reopen at the end of a blind level.  I would only add to that the possibility of reopening discussion after a round of play.  I think the blind level is more arbitrary in comparison to hands played.  After a full round of chip movement we can discuss again.