Cloture Poker

The Senate has its traditions. One of them is free speech and another is poker. A great many Senators are extraordinarily hard workers, and of course relaxation is necessary. So poker has become a tradition, sub rosa. Last week the two traditions were brought together on the floor, to the great interest of venerable Senators.

Senator Underwood of Alabama (a Kentuckian by birth), one of the abler men of his party, "sound and conservative," who is serving his final term in the Senate, having announced that he will retire next March, had been pressing for an amendment to the Senate rules such as has been favored by Vice President Dawes--an amendment which would require a vote on revenue and appropriation bills to be taken and debate to be shut off by majority petition, so that bills may not be talked to death by a vociferous minority.

Senator Robinson of Arkansas, the nominal Democratic leader, made an impassioned protest against the Underwood proposal:

"The Senator from Alabama concludes his service in the United States Senate by an attack on its efficiency. He has enjoyed the privilege of the present rules to defeat legislation. Now, when the hour of his retirement is at hand he says this body does not operate efficiently.

"The Vice President and the Senator from Alabama would substitute for free speech here a gag rule that would be more intolerable than any tyranny ever manifested in any legislative body on this earth.

" Mr. Underwood rose to remonstrate that "the game must be played according to the rules," that the best hand (i.e., the majority) should win.

Mr. Underwood: "I want to illustrate. Possibly I cannot illustrate to my friend from Arkansas because he may not know the game."

Mr. Robinson: "To what game does the Senator refer?"

Mr. Underwood: "There is a game called draw poker--

Mr. Shortridge of California: "One moment, Mr. President--

Mr. Overman of North Carolina: "The Senator will have to explain what that means."

Mr. Underwood: "I'm going to illustrate if my friends will allow me."

Mr. Shortridge: "The Supreme Court of the state, of Kentucky has decided that it is not a game of chance but merely a scientific undertaking.

" Mr. Robinson: "The Senator from Alabama may draw the fire of the Senator from California by a reference to that mysterious amusement which he calls draw poker, but I assure him that the most of us have no knowledge whatever of the subject.

" Mr. Underwood: "I was sure of that and therefore I excluded my friend from Arkansas. ... I always try to be candid with my friends, and I am not afraid to say what I believe.* I have played the game of draw poker. I regret to say I am not an expert. That has been forcibly illustrated to me. The old game of draw poker has certain manifest rules and regulations as to what is the highest hand. I believe it is called a straight flush."

Several Senatorial Voices: "A royal flush!"

Mr. Underwood: "A royal flush. But as times progressed and we reached modern developments and modern ideas, innovations have been introduced into the game. They now allow deuces to run wild. I believe that is the term.

"Finally, the game has reached the point where a man can hold innumerable aces and straight flushes. The game has become so confusing that no man knows what he is playing. I believe if people are going to play the game they ought to play it according to the old rules laid down in Hoyle, the demonstrated rules."*

Senator Reed of Missouri: "Why does the Senator from Alabama want to change the old rules of the Senate if he is against changing the old rules of poker? I think we have an illustration here, not of deuces running wild, but of a very fine ace running wild."

Mr. Underwood: "I thank the Senator for that."

Not a Senator came to Mr. Underwood's support either in exposition of the game of draw poker or with a good word for cloture. So far as the present Congress is concerned, the latter matter may be regarded as closed.

*This admission is not very damaging, since Mr. Underwood is about to retire.

*Mr. Underwood's exposition is rather too technical for a strict Methodist. The game is played about as follows: Five cards each are dealt to players, of whom there may be from two to six. Counters called "chips" representing money, real or imaginary, are used, and each player who believes that the cards dealt him may possibly win, places one or more of these counters in the centre of the table in a pile, which is called the "pot." Those who do this are then privileged (but not required) to call on the dealer for from one to five cards more, after having discarded an equal number. All hold their cards concealed. The player at the dealer's left then places a stake in the pot. In clockwise order, according to the value which they set by their cards, the players in order may then place an equal or a greater number of chips in the pot. Any player may at any time refuse to place more chips in the pot, thereby forfeiting any opportunity to capture the pot for himself. In this way the pot is increased until one player has placed a greater number of chips in the pot than any other, and players eliminate themselves until only one remains and he may have the pot without showing the cards he holds. But if instead of dropping out, the opposing player or players place chips in the pot exactly equaling those of the player who has placed the greatest number, then the cards are exposed and the player with the best cards takes the pot. The cards are valued according to an arbitrary system. The "best" possible hand is one which contains ace, king, queen, jack, ten of one suit ("a royal flush"). The lowest possible hand is two, three, four, five, seven in four different suits ("seven high"). There are many variants on the game as here described. In one of them, known as "deuces wild," any deuce is by courtesy allowed to represent any card of any suit in the evaluation of a hand. Since a large part of the game consists in guessing the value of opponents' cards, absolute control of facial expression is an essential.