Reaction is mixed so far about the World Series of Poker delaying the final table of this year's main event from July to November, then televising it in almost real time. Let's check out some comments.

Q: The WSOP decision raises some very interesting legal issues. What happens if a player dies or is disabled before the November final? Do a player's heirs obtain his contractual or property rights as a result of the paid entry and earned chip stack? Have you ever seen anything like this happen in a continuous event? — Bruce C. in Quad-Cities, Iowa

A: Great question, Bruce. No, I've never been in a tournament where a final-table contestant died or was unable to continue. The WSOP press release earlier this month didn't address this possibility, but you have to figure that Harrah's Entertainment and the WSOP Players Advisory Council discussed it.

Your assessment that Harrah's would declare the "same rules apply as if a player dropped dead or became disabled in the middle of an event" makes sense to me. Typically, that means blinds and antes still are posted from his stack and become part of each pot.

This happens a lot at the beginning of tournaments. Tardy players are dealt in each hand and required bets are taken from their stack. In most events, if a player doesn't arrive after a certain time, his entire stack is removed. It's rare, however, to have players missing at the end of a tournament.

If one or more of the final nine players can't compete in November, I share your hope that his entry fee and ninth-place winnings be paid to his family or heirs and that his remaining chips be taken out of play immediately. Leaving the chip stack on the table and collecting blinds and antes until all the chips are gone would affect the game's dynamics.

Solutions to legal ramifications haven't been announced, to my knowledge, but you could be correct in saying that it's unlikely a court would rule "that the property or contractual interest a player obtains survives and can be inherited." It's too personal a right.

One point you raised cannot be disputed — that delaying the final table will eliminate the mental fatigue factor that has played a role in recent WSOP championships.

You wrote: "Look at Scott Lazar's meltdown in 2006. Look at Steve Dannenman's all-in call against Joe Hachem in 2005 with an incredibly marginal hand. He was tired and wanted it over with. In 2003, the normally bold and gutsy Sam Farha laid down top pair to Chris Moneymaker's bluff, when he KNEW he had him beat, because he wasn't on top of his game."

Ah, you're so correct, Bruce. The irony on the Farha hand, of course, is that if he doesn't fold to create the "Cinderella" Moneymaker victory, the poker boom as we know it might never have happened!

Q: Delaying the WSOP final table is a stupid idea and unfair to the players. What if someone dies, goes to jail or is otherwise incapacitated before November? Also, the finish still won't be live. Because of the Internet, we'll all know who won before the edited broadcast. What's the point? — Jay L. in Costa Rica

A: I agree the delay could prove unfair to the players, Jay. Poker is a game of momentum and situational decisions based on how opponents are playing at that moment. A four-month delay will change that dynamic, cooling off hot players and giving rattled players a chance to regroup.

The upside, I suppose, is that this year's final table may yield some of the best poker action ever televised because all nine players will have time to plan strategies and improve their games.

The near real-time telecast on Nov. 11, just hours after a champion has been decided, will seem like a live reality show compared to previous years. I think a huge majority of casual viewers won't check the Internet beforehand, and poker fans who do still will watch. So, from ESPN's viewpoint, there's no downside.

Q: I'll be most interested to see if the TV announcers' commentary suffers from lack of time to think of "witty" comments. — Ken L. in Pennington, N.J.

A: Ha! There are plenty of wags who think the TV commentary we hear now is far from "witty," even though the announcers have months to prepare!

One thing's for sure: We'll know more than ever before about these finalists, thanks to pre-event hype. They'll all be "hometown heroes," and we'll have time to pick a favorite to cheer on to victory from our easy chairs.

E-mail your poker questions and comments to [email protected] for use in future columns. To find out more about Russ Scott and read previous LuckyDog Poker columns, visit www.creators.com or www.luckydogpoker.com.