PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Luca P. on November 24, 2011, 05:00:45 AM
-
Hi guys,
What happens when a player seated in the BB position is not at the table and cards have been dealt?
Should we muck his hand?
Thank you
-
Yes.
-
yes, if everyone folds, the blinds go to the last live hand, ie the small blind would get the pot without acting
-
27: At Your Seat
A player must be at his seat by the time all players have been dealt complete initial hands in order to have a live hand. A player must be at his seat to call time.
-
We've had discusions similar to this in the past, and I want you to know that I agree. However, what if the absent BB were all-in?
-
there is a slight conflict "at your seat" v "all-in hands" my answer is to kill the hand before tabling of an absent BB/SB/Ante player so that they cannot win the pot on showdown, but their hand still is tabled, I instruct a simple touch into the muck before tabling.
Stu
-
IMO, if they are not in their seat at the table when the last card is dealt, the rules say they cannot play the hand. There is no consideration given to the blind putting them all-in. I think their hand should be mucked immediately at the end of the deal.
One additional note: if a player has left the table with only one big blind left in their stack, do we really expect them to return to the game?
We use a slight variation of this in our game. Because we have a rule preventing smoking at the table we don't allow players close enough to the table to try to play their cards. They end up taking a big puff and blowing it out while they lean over to check their cards. Not to mention that standing behind the table puts them in a very unfair position of being able to see other players' cards, then return to the table to play the hand.
As a result of this, we implemented what I call the "AIS" rule. If your Ass isn't In the Seat when the last card is dealt, your cards are deal, no exceptions. Players know this rule. So, if they leave their BB unprotected by being away from the table it's their fault they lose their blind, not mine.
-
Nick raises a good point there about the BB absent and all in. Supposing the BB goes all in and the deaelr tables the cards and the BB goes Im sorry but im desperate for a pee and shoots to the bog - just before the dealer has a chance to deal the flop turn and river. Would you still kill the hand even though the BB was still in their seat after his/her cards were tabled?
-
TDA Rule 28 says, "A player must remain at the table if he has a live hand." PERIOD
In my opinion, a player with a live hand that leaves the table has FOLDED and the hand should be killed in turn. It makes not a speck of difference if the player has only the BB invested or has gone all-in. The hand is DEAD if he is not present when it is his turn to act.
Chet
-
TDA Rule 28 says, "A player must remain at the table if he has a live hand." PERIOD
In my opinion, a player with a live hand that leaves the table has FOLDED and the hand should be killed in turn. It makes not a speck of difference if the player has only the BB invested or has gone all-in. The hand is DEAD if he is not present when it is his turn to act.
Chet
I agree that if the BB is all-in but there is still action pending from others at the table, the BB's hand should be dead. I would even go so far to as say that he has 'surrendered' his hand as soon as he leaves the table, not just if he's not present when it is his turn to act (otherwise, a 'friendly' opponent could just delay acting until he returns).
But I think Wolfster is questioning what happens if the BB has already acted. The action came around to him, he was all-in, and then the dealer has already tabled the cards, so there is no more action pending from anyone. It's just that the community cards have yet to be dealt. In that case, there may be an argument that the bb's hand can't be killed because you shouldn't be able to kill an all-in hand that has already been tabled. The arguments that are usually put forth in support of killing a hand where the player has left the table seem to revolve around preserving the rights of opponents to be able to get a read from the player, which can't happen if the player is not at the table. But in the case of an all-in where all hands have been tabled and there, no one has any more options left for the hand, it doesn't seem as necessary to kill the hand. Although I admit that it's a lot easier to just strictly enforce the rule that the player must remain at the table in all situations.
-
My interpretation of Rule 28 is that if the player is not present, the hand is DEAD. I was trying to give the player who left to go to the restroom a bit of time to return, but I can just as well instruct my dealers that if a player leaves the table, regardless of the reason, the dealer should IMMEDIATELY kill the hand. To me it makes no difference whether the player is all-in or not. If the player leaves the table, he leaves the table knowing the hand is dead.
Chet
-
I can agree with K-lo here. If all the action is complete and the board just needs to be run then I see no reason to not let one of the effected players run off to the john if they want to and push the chips to his seat if he happens to win. But, ANYTIME there is still action from any player in the hand and someone leaves, then the hand is dead.
-
I'm with Chet on this one, all the way. If the idiot doesn't have enough sense to stay at the table, he has no right to win the pot. Who turns his cards? Who reads his hand? Why should an absent player have a better chance of winning a hand, than a player sitting in the game that mis-reads his hand and tosses it? Any above action would involve at least another player, so wouldn't that violate the one player to a hand rule? If the BB is absent when the cards are dealt, kill the hand immediately. If the fool leaves the table with action pending he violates the at your seat rule. Kill the damn hand and move on.