WIZARD: Argument with Pit Boss re: splitting

I was in AC this past weekend and ventured over to Caesars AC because some friends of mine wanted to play there. They perused the tables and asked me which table had the best rules. They were looking to play at a $25min table.

Table 1 had the following sign:

Split any pair up to three times.
Aces may be split only once and draw one card.


Table 2 had the following sign:

Split any pair up to three times.
Aces only draw one card.


I told my friends to play at Table 2 as splitting any pair, which to me, included Aces, could be split up to three times.

We were discussing this while they were getting chips and the dealer piped in to inform us that Aces could only be split once. I pointed out the sign to the dealer and told him how it differed from the other sign and that a pair is a pair whether it be Aces or eights or threes or fives. The dealer informed me I was "taking the sign too literally" and that "everybody knows that Aces are only split once"
I asked for the pit boss, who came over and stated that I was "reading too much into the sign". I informed him that at Table 1 there was a sign expressly stating that Aces could only be split once and draw one card. He became very annoyed at informed me that "Aces only draw one card" means "Aces can only be split once". I again reiterated that, as the signs were different, one could not imply anything. He then accused me of trying to "scam the system" (I have no idea what that meant.


WIZARD - who is right?

In contract law, the specificity of a contract falls on the person who wrote the contract. They put the Aces clause on one sign but not the other. I think they need to put a new, more specific card on the second table or let you split the aces up to three times.

IANAL, but my neighbor is.

Quote: FarFromVegas

In contract law, the specificity of a contract falls on the person who wrote the contract. They put the Aces clause on one sign but not the other. I think they need to put a new, more specific card on the second table or let you split the aces up to three times.

IANAL, but my neighbor is.

IAAL and I concur.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Poor penetration, no surrender, no resplitting aces. Too many reasons why not to go to AC for blackjack.

ibeat - we all know your anti-AC bias ( for me, not having to pay for room or meals makes all the difference). As for penetration, dealers I play with always give about 75%.

BUT-I really want answers to the question posed in my post. All other rules are superfluous to this thread. :)

Quote: aceofspades

ibeat - we all know your anti-AC bias ( for me, not having to pay for room or meals makes all the difference). As for penetration, dealers I play with always give about 75%.

BUT-I really want answers to the question posed in my post. All other rules are superfluous to this thread. :)

I've never played blackjack in AC because I don't play blackjack. But if I sat down at the table with the second sign, I would NOT have known aces could not be split 3 times without it specifically stating that on the sign. I mean, I'd be stupid to sit down at a $25 table without really knowing the rules, but they don't test your Gambling IQ before you sit down at a green chip table as far as I know.

deleted

If I were new to blackjack I would assume that table 2 allowed re-splitting of aces, by virtue of the omission of the rule prohibiting doing that, as compared to the sign on table #1. However, through the years, I've learned to have very low expectations of casinos in expressing their own rules. Also, "aces draw only one card" I would assume to mean no re-splitting aces, since nobody that I know of allows drawing to split aces in a legitimate 3-2 blackjack game. Yes, that would make the sign on table #1 redundant, but I never said they were good signs.

So, I would say that legally you could make a good case. However, based on common blackjack rules and terminology, I don't think you had cause to complain. The sign was inconsistent with the other sign, but I still interpret it to mean aces may not be re-split. If I was there the most I would have done is made a friendly suggestion that if the rules on the two tables are the same then they should have the same sign, lest players incorrectly make inferences based on the omission in the second sign.

Quote: Wizard

Also, "aces draw only one card" I would assume to mean no re-splitting aces, since nobody that I know of allows drawing to split aces in a legitimate 3-2 blackjack game. Yes, that would make the sign on table #1 redundant, but I never said they were good signs.

To me, "aces draw only one card" would mean that if I split them and got a 5, I couldn't hit my 16. But since the sign did say ANY pair could be split up to three times that wouldn't eliminate splitting if I got another ace instead of the 5. But, once again, I'm not a blackjack player. They might as well spell it all out for us tourist types on all the tables if they're going to do it on one. People hate to be called scammers when they really just want to be clear on what the rules are.

Quote: Wizard

Yes, that would make the sign on table #1 redundant, but I never said they were good signs.

Don't hate me for a slight derail, but the redundancy comment reminded me of something here in Iowa...

There is a lady who runs a party pit at one of the local casinos (which is basically different lights, music and special BJ promotions, some of which aren't too bad). As part of the promotion, the lady announces that if a player gets "a Same Suited BJ, they win...". She'll repeat the phrase "Same Suited BJ" about 5-6 times when making this announcement, usually 2-3 times an hour.

It's like announcing a hard 12 on craps. All 12's are going to be hard... it's just repetitive.

And it drives me NUTS...

Back to your topic, though. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the signs are different, but I agree with the Wizard that "Aces draw one card" usually implies that you cannot re-split them. It's different terminology, as you can hit aces on Spanish 21, but that's usually what is meant by that. I only see the terms when the casino explicitly ALLOWS re-splitting Aces, like at Harrah's Joliet or in Kansas City.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Don't hate me for a slight derail, but the redundancy comment reminded me of something here in Iowa...

There is a lady who runs a party pit at one of the local casinos (which is basically different lights, music and special BJ promotions, some of which aren't too bad). As part of the promotion, the lady announces that if a player gets "a Same Suited BJ, they win...". She'll repeat the phrase "Same Suited BJ" about 5-6 times when making this announcement, usually 2-3 times an hour.

It's like announcing a hard 12 on craps. All 12's are going to be hard... it's just repetitive.

And it drives me NUTS...

Back to your topic, though. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, the signs are different, but I agree with the Wizard that "Aces draw one card" usually implies that you cannot re-split them. It's different terminology, as you can hit aces on Spanish 21, but that's usually what is meant by that. I only see the terms when the casino explicitly ALLOWS re-splitting Aces, like at Harrah's Joliet or in Kansas City.

But, the phrase "split any pair" means ANY pair unless qualified by another statement "except Aces"
These signs will probably cause no commotion other than the one I made - but only because I actually pay attention to the written word over what a dealer/PB tell me.

Quote: aceofspades

I was in AC this past weekend and ventured over to Caesars AC because some friends of mine wanted to play there. They perused the tables and asked me which table had the best rules. They were looking to play at a $25min table.

Table 1 had the following sign:

Split any pair up to three times.
Aces may be split only once and draw one card.


Table 2 had the following sign:

Split any pair up to three times.
Aces only draw one card.


I told my friends to play at Table 2 as splitting any pair, which to me, included Aces, could be split up to three times.

We were discussing this while they were getting chips and the dealer piped in to inform us that Aces could only be split once. I pointed out the sign to the dealer and told him how it differed from the other sign and that a pair is a pair whether it be Aces or eights or threes or fives. The dealer informed me I was "taking the sign too literally" and that "everybody knows that Aces are only split once"
I asked for the pit boss, who came over and stated that I was "reading too much into the sign". I informed him that at Table 1 there was a sign expressly stating that Aces could only be split once and draw one card. He became very annoyed at informed me that "Aces only draw one card" means "Aces can only be split once". I again reiterated that, as the signs were different, one could not imply anything. He then accused me of trying to "scam the system" (I have no idea what that meant.


WIZARD - who is right?

Your interpretation of the sign is correct although we know that was not the intent. The sign said any pair period and draw one card has nothing to do with it. The pit boss could have simply removed the sign. This is one of those times to remember the saying "pick your battles" because this one cannot be won.

I share the thoughts of Ibeatyouraces on AC and I must say that with your action you should be well taken care of wherever you choose to play.

I think from a strictly legal perspective, the original poster is absolutely correct. The existence of the two different signs implies a difference in meaning. In particular, the use in the first sign of both "Aces may be split only once" and also the phrase "and draw one card" means that these two things mean different things to the poster of the sign (the casino, in this case.)

The omission of the first phrase on the second sign makes it very difficult for the casino to argue that "only draw one card" is somehow doing double duty. (There is a counter-argument available about the inclusion of the word "only" on the second sign, but that is very weak tea.) If so, why was it necessary to have it on the first sign? If you want the same meaning, you need to use the same words.

And as to the assertion that you're "reading too much into the sign," I imagine the Gaming folks have an opinion about that-- I don't think you can post one rule and have the rule as enforced be different.

Having said all that, I think it would be impossible to get any relief. You might be take them to court and force them to deal you one hand with those rules in effect, but I'm guessing they'd go ahead and ban you from then on, which i'm pretty sure they're allowed to do.

Some of you are putting too much onus on the casino. Those signs were probably written/ordered by two different employees at different times in the past. It's not great that they have them, but that type of thing just happens.

The onus and timing of determining ALL the rules of a particular game are on the player before the money hits the felt.
There are many ways to do this without asking the staff, but it definitely needs to be done before you play.
ace did the right thing in trying for clarification, and I am not surprised that the signage was misleading.
This goes right back to our discussions about fair play from the casinos.
The norm is that they are sketchy.
Arguing with a casino floor employee is nearly pointless.