PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Ash on June 13, 2017, 06:48:51 PM
-
Hi everybody
Here is the case
Post flop, player A bets, the other fold except one who calls.
Player A didn't see the call and folds his hand thinking it's over.
The dealer keeps the card which are perfectly identifiable and calls the TD.
Does A have the possibilty to retrieve his cards or is it a definitive fold?
-
Identifiable and retrievable are the key words.
It's a live hand, returned to the player and play resumes.
-
Identifiable and retrievable are the key words.
It's a live hand, returned to the player and play resumes.
According to which TDA Rule?
-
Hi Ash: Interesting case, I was just discussing this today, and this issue will come up for debate at the 2017 Summit.
There's not an exact rule and Player A has put himself at risk by inattentiveness so for the moment you have to go to Rule 1. There are reasons for killing A's hand, and reasons for preserving it. My personal instinct is to preserve it for these reasons:
1: A is not exactly "folding" here... he's discarded "thinking he has won" to cite language from Rule 13-B.
2: Rule 53 "Non-Standard Folds" does specifically address folds only... i.e. discarding to voluntarily kill your own hand, which A didn't really do here.
3: Rule 53 also implies intent to fold and forfeit any claim to the pot which you certainly don't have.
4: In the large scope of things we have a bet and call, the bettor just wasn't aware of the call and his cards are identifiable so in the interest of the bet and call IMO the cards should be preserved.
5: Let's go back to one of the most notorious poker incidents of the past generation: Koroknai vs. Baumann at the 2012 WSOP. In that hand the cards were not preserved but rather insta-mucked. 100% that if the dealer had managed to stop the cards from entering the muck they would have been preserved, returned to Koroknai, and action would have been on Baumann... so you have a specific case on which to base a ruling of preserving the cards here.
Note: The TDA discussed a "Baumann" rule at the 2013 Summit at the Venetian but no consensus emerged. I just don't think anyone would have declared his cards dead if they could have been preserved.
Thanks for the great case and stay tuned for the discussion at the Summit.
-
I think it falls under "do the right thing."
-
Also, see this forum thread:
Suggested changes to Rule #14 - Live Cards at Showdown (http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1388.msg12080#msg12080)
The scenario here is a situation where a possibility that Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them. However, this scenario is not at showdown so Rule #14 doesn't apply.
I would rule that fairness and the best interests of the game would save this hand and allow play to continue. I would also make clear that the player has responsibilities to follow the action and protect their hands.
As Mike points out, Rule #53 says folding in turn if there’s no bet to you ~ is a binding fold and subject to penalty. Perhaps Rule #53 should be altered to read:
53: Non-Standard Folds
Anytime before the end of the final betting round, intentionally folding in turn if there’s no bet to you (ex: facing a check or first to act post-flop) or folding out of turn are binding folds subject to penalty.
Also, the grammar could be corrected. Change "or folding" to "and folding." Otherwise, change "are binding folds" to "is a binding fold."
-
Nevertheless, if his cards are mucked, you all agree his chips are lost and the last remaining player win them ?
-
If the cards are irretrievable/unidentifiable, then yes, his hand is dead and he gets no refund of chips. Otherwise a player could bluff, get called, then try and muck and get refund. Difference in ruling is if dealer kills by accident or if player voluntarily gives up the cards.