Myooligan: legal question

[Myooligan]

I just read a chapter in Blackjack and the Law which gave me pause. Nelson Rose wrote,

". . . signaling other players might be construed as an attempt 'to alter the criteria which determines the result of a game,' in other words, cheating, under Nevada law, since blackjack is not supposed to be a team game,"(p.70).

That was written in 1987 and he was specifically addressing Nevada law. Have any relevant precedents been set since then? I've also wondered if a casino could make a case that a player on a team was in effect using another player as a device, hence cheating.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I believe in Canada this was at least partially determined when it was ruled that signaling was no different than asking for advice. What I have always wondered about is getting a signal from a nonplayer positioned to see a hole-card or next card. In such a case, you are playing with information not available to other players.

Which is my long way of saying I don't know.

[Al Rogers]

I've also wondered if a casino could make a case that a player on a team was in effect using another player as a device, hence cheating.

The leading case on signaling is Sheriff of Clark County v. Einbinder and Dalben, Nevada Supreme Court case number 15797, opinion filed December 18, 1984. The Nevada Supreme Court stated:

Dalben was lawfully seated at his position at the blackjack table, that he did not use any artificial device to aid his vision, and that he was able to see the dealer's hole card solely because of the admittedly sloppy play of the dealer. Respondent Dalben then communicated his information to respondent Einbinder. The district court ruled that respondents' conduct did not constitute a violation of the cheating statutes. We agree.

This leaves open the question of whether using a teammate who is not seated at the table is legal, but appears to clearly demonstrate that signaling among players at the table is not cheating, assuming that collusion with a dishonest dealer is not involved.

[Sun Runner]

> Respondent Dalben then communicated his information to respondent Einbinder.

I assume Einbinder was also seated at the table. From a laymen's point of view that makes sense as seated players exchange information among themslves all the time.

What, if different, is the underlying foundation for allowing team play? That is to say a player is seated at the table and is relaying information to a team member off the table (that the count is 'high')?

My understanding is it's clearly illegal for a player OFF the table to relay information (information that might not be available to all players) to a player on the table. Correct?

[Al Rogers]

I assume Einbinder was also seated at the table.

You are correct.

What, if different, is the underlying foundation for allowing team play? That is to say a player is seated at the table and is relaying information to a team member off the table (that the count is 'high')?

The player off the table has not yet participated in the game. The count is information available to anyone who bothers to learn how to count. A player has no obligation to withhold information from a non-player. The fact that the non-player now chooses to become a player is irrelevant.

My understanding is it's clearly illegal for a player OFF the table to relay information (information that might not be available to all players) to a player on the table. Correct?

Not clearly illegal. To my knowledge, it has never been tested in court. People not playing at the table routinely give information to players on the table. For example, a player may ask their friend who is watching a game how to play a hand. However, the Nevada Supreme Court took care to make the point that Dalben was lawfully seated at his position at the blackjack table. Thus it can be inferred that this was part of the reason for the Court's ruling.

[Brick]

most ploppies would be in jail.

[Sun Runner]

> most ploppies would be in jail.

But I was referring to spooking.

That would be 'clearly illegal' though as that information is not commonly known to all players?

[Brick]

that is commonly not known to all players!?

> That would be 'clearly illegal' though as that
> information is not commonly known to all players?

[Myooligan]

Al, thankyou very much for these responses. I don't currently play on a team but I hope to eventually, so I'd like to know what I'm getting people into (and getting into myself). I have one more question, though: The Rose article stated that blackjack isn't supposed to be a "team game" in Nevada. What's the basis for that statement? Have court opinions clearly stated that? If so, have they in any way articulated what it means?

[Norm Wattenberger]

The knowledge that matters in this case is information that affects the outcome of the game. Basic Strategy knowledge is available to all players. It's their fault if they chose not to learn or use it.

NRS 465.070 Fraudulent acts. It is unlawful for any person:

2. To place, increase or decrease a bet or to determine the course of play after acquiring knowledge, not available to all players, of the outcome of the game or any event that affects the outcome of the game or which is the subject of the bet or to aid anyone in acquiring such knowledge for the purpose of placing, increasing or decreasing a bet or determining the course of play contingent upon that event or outcome.

An obvious case of cheating would be a person standing behind a Poker player and signaling his down cards to a partner.

[Al Rogers]

The Rose article stated that blackjack isn't supposed to be a "team game" in Nevada. What's the basis for that statement?

I don't know. Blackjack isn't "supposed" to be a "team game" anywhere else, either. But just because casinos don't like "team play" doesn't make it illegal. Do casinos and Gaming officials always know and/or obey the law? No.

Have court opinions clearly stated that?

To my knowledge, it hasn't been addressed in a court case except in the aforementioned Einbender/Dalben case. See my previous comments.

"Team play" in the most-common meaning of the phrase involves pooled bankrolls, investors, etc., not actual "team play" at the tables, except for spotter/BP situations which we have already covered.

[WallStRunoff]

Its difficult grounds for the casinos becuase there are countless situations where naive players are signalling to their buddies and companions that a table is "hot" and they should sit down. One time I was playing w/ Roger Clemen's friend who told him the table was hot. It wasn't by a advantage players' standards (as far as I was aware). But this would constitute cheating under such a definition.

[Myooligan]

> Not clearly illegal. To my
> knowledge, it has never been tested in court. People
> not playing at the table routinely give information to
> players on the table. For example, a player may ask
> their friend who is watching a game how to play a
> hand. However, the Nevada Supreme Court took care to
> make the point that Dalben was lawfully seated at his
> position at the blackjack table . Thus it can be
> inferred that this was part of the reason for the
> Court's ruling.

It would be interesting to hear more about the case. I wonder if the distinction of spooking vs. standard hole card play came up during the case. Perhaps the Supreme Court was trying to emphasize that if Dalben had been behind the dealer, it would have been an entirely different situation.

Whatever the court intended, in light of WallStRunoff's point below, maybe casinos would actually prefer such an interpretation, if the case is ever referenced again.