Check 15 ruling cases

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello partners!

I recently worked on a NLH 1300 players tournament in Europe with a very good TD (I was his right arm) but he took some decisions on some ruling I would like your opinion.
I know they are very numerous but any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

PS1 - No criticism on him at all, just to check what would have been in the line of the TDA or not!
PS2 – I surely would have ruled differently most of those but I may be right or wrong for the TDA!

1-   A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – C didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed + another player D to speak behind) – ruling?
2-   A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – C didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing + another player D to speak behind) – ruling?

3-   A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed + another player C to speak behind) – ruling?
4-   A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing + another player C to speak behind) – ruling?

5-   Two players left - A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed) – ruling?
6-   Two players left - A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing) – ruling?

7-   Three players left at flop – Dealer by error mix the muck with the deck (the board is still on the table) – the pot had been split between the three players left – good ruling?
8-    Two players left at turn – A checks – B bets – dealer mix everything (board + deck + muck) – pot had been split between the two players left – good ruling?

9-   More and more tournaments in Europe forbid any speaking between the players when they are more than two left – Is this opposite to the TDA (& Negreanu) tendencies?

10-   A player is allowed to take back his change (previous bets from him) while betting silently if it’s done simultaneously – It’s forbidden if delayed – good ruling?

11-    Approaching the bubble (five to two players before the ITM) the TD ask for the “Soft hand by hand” also called “Showdown Control” – Which is asking to stop and announce any “all-in and call” and then ask for all the tables to finish their hand and stop but without playing in hand by hand (when the game restart and if no “all-in and call” the tables do not wait for each-other) – do you know that? – do you call it this name?

12-   Players in places A B E F – sits C D open – A is button - B is SB – E is BB – then E is eliminated (so now sits C D E are free) – then three players arrive in places C D E – so B is button – C is SB – D is BB (so virtually the BB went backward one sit from D to C) – good ruling?

13-   TD called after a hand is over because the table realize that the button and both blinds skipped a seat  (for example the player who just posted the SB during the last hand didn’t post the BB the hand before) – TD declared to be sorry but he never bring the button and blinds backward because of risk of confusing situations depending on the players eliminated during this backward hand – the players must pay attention to the button and blinds position before playing a hand – so the button and blinds keep on advancing normally – good ruling?

14-   A hand his starting preflop – A open all-in at 4000 – B C D fold – then someone realize that A should have receive a total of 12000 in a confusing multiport the hand before – all the table agree together with the dealer and player F who should give back 8000 to A (from the previous hand) and didn’t already act in the actual hand – TD ruled that the 8000 will be given to A but that the all-in is still biding (so a 12000 all-in now) – for the history: player E did call the 12000 (the rest fold) and won the pot (player A later complained that he would not have gone all-in if 12000 in front of him) – good ruling?

15-    Three player left at flop AQQ – A (with AK) open 3000 – B (with AT) raises 10000 – C (with Q5s) folds and shows his hand (!) – then another player Z (who folded preflop) declare he had a Q too (!) – then player B scream and shows his hand (so AT) and says his bluff can’t work anymore because of C and Z informations given to A prematurely – TD ruled that B can take back his raise and play free (and punished players C and Z on the next hand) – good ruling?

Please no comments like “This player is an idiot” or “That dealer should be fired” – But strictly ruling advices please - Thank you very much - GG

 

[BillM16]

Rule #37 can be applied to the first six cases. 

In cases 1 & 2, player C has made a binding undercall.  Both cases were made in turn and in a multiway pot, while facing a raise (not while facing the opening bet).  Therefore, my ruling would be that player C must either call the entire 5000 or fold while leaving 3000 in the pot.

In cases 3 & 4, player B has made a binding undercall.  Again, both cases were made in turn and in a multiway pot.  However in these two cases, player B is facing the opening bet (not while facing a raise as in the first two cases).  Therefore, rule 37 says that is a mandatory that the undercall must be made a full call.

Cases 5 & 6 are much like cases 3 & 4, the difference only being that player B is heads ups when making the undercall.  So, again rule 37 says it must be a full call.

[BillM16]

Guillaume, regarding ruling case #12:

Rule #9 Breaking Tables should apply. When the three players arrive, player in seat B is the Button, player in seat C is the SB, and the BB would move to the player in seat D in this hand.  The fact that the BB had advanced as far as seat E in the previous hand has no bearing on this ruling.  All remaining players from the previous hand are being treated fairly, especially the player in seat B who was previously the SB who has now become Button.  As noted, the previous hand's BB player was eliminated.

[BillM16]

Guillaume, regarding ruling case #14:

I agree that it was fair to give player A the additional 8000 that he won on the previous hand.  Clearly, players B, C, and D have folded and will remain so.  But, how about player A?  Would he have bet all-in with 12000?  Would he have bet only 4000 or maybe 6000?  We cannot be sure.  However, we know that player E would be facing an opening bet no less than 4000 and a player who was willing to go all-in for that amount.  To me, the TD seems to have three options:

1) keep the bet at 4000 and let player E proceed with his action
2) bind player A to the (misinformed) verbal declaration of all-in and force the bet to be increased by 8000 to a total of 12000
3) allow player A an option to increase but not decrease his bet from 4000 up to and including all-in

I would choose option #1.  Player A should not be able to increase the amount of his bet with the additional knowledge that three players have folded.  The TD should not bind the bet to the verbal all-in either as it has significant impact to both player A and E as it alters the actual betting action that has occurred up to this point.
 

[Brian Vickers]

Hello partners!

I recently worked on a NLH 1300 players tournament in Europe with a very good TD (I was his right arm) but he took some decisions on some ruling I would like your opinion.
I know they are very numerous but any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

PS1 - No criticism on him at all, just to check what would have been in the line of the TDA or not!
PS2 – I surely would have ruled differently most of those but I may be right or wrong for the TDA!

1-   A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – C didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed + another player D to speak behind) – ruling?
2-   A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – C didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing + another player D to speak behind) – ruling?

3-   A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed + another player C to speak behind) – ruling?
4-   A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing + another player C to speak behind) – ruling?

5-   Two players left - A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed) – ruling?
6-   Two players left - A open bet 5000 – B didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing) – ruling?

7-   Three players left at flop – Dealer by error mix the muck with the deck (the board is still on the table) – the pot had been split between the three players left – good ruling?
8-    Two players left at turn – A checks – B bets – dealer mix everything (board + deck + muck) – pot had been split between the two players left – good ruling?

9-   More and more tournaments in Europe forbid any speaking between the players when they are more than two left – Is this opposite to the TDA (& Negreanu) tendencies?

10-   A player is allowed to take back his change (previous bets from him) while betting silently if it’s done simultaneously – It’s forbidden if delayed – good ruling?

11-    Approaching the bubble (five to two players before the ITM) the TD ask for the “Soft hand by hand” also called “Showdown Control” – Which is asking to stop and announce any “all-in and call” and then ask for all the tables to finish their hand and stop but without playing in hand by hand (when the game restart and if no “all-in and call” the tables do not wait for each-other) – do you know that? – do you call it this name?

12-   Players in places A B E F – sits C D open – A is button - B is SB – E is BB – then E is eliminated (so now sits C D E are free) – then three players arrive in places C D E – so B is button – C is SB – D is BB (so virtually the BB went backward one sit from D to C) – good ruling?

13-   TD called after a hand is over because the table realize that the button and both blinds skipped a seat  (for example the player who just posted the SB during the last hand didn’t post the BB the hand before) – TD declared to be sorry but he never bring the button and blinds backward because of risk of confusing situations depending on the players eliminated during this backward hand – the players must pay attention to the button and blinds position before playing a hand – so the button and blinds keep on advancing normally – good ruling?

14-   A hand his starting preflop – A open all-in at 4000 – B C D fold – then someone realize that A should have receive a total of 12000 in a confusing multiport the hand before – all the table agree together with the dealer and player F who should give back 8000 to A (from the previous hand) and didn’t already act in the actual hand – TD ruled that the 8000 will be given to A but that the all-in is still biding (so a 12000 all-in now) – for the history: player E did call the 12000 (the rest fold) and won the pot (player A later complained that he would not have gone all-in if 12000 in front of him) – good ruling?

15-    Three player left at flop AQQ – A (with AK) open 3000 – B (with AT) raises 10000 – C (with Q5s) folds and shows his hand (!) – then another player Z (who folded preflop) declare he had a Q too (!) – then player B scream and shows his hand (so AT) and says his bluff can’t work anymore because of C and Z informations given to A prematurely – TD ruled that B can take back his raise and play free (and punished players C and Z on the next hand) – good ruling?

Please no comments like “This player is an idiot” or “That dealer should be fired” – But strictly ruling advices please - Thank you very much - GG

 

Here we go:

1&2: Saying 3000 is same as pushing 3000 in; there was a change in action; ruling: C can call 5000 or fold and forfeit 3000.

3&4: Similar to 1&2 only he is facing the opening bet on a round; ruling: B must call 5000.

5&6: Same ruling as 3&4 he must call 5000 as he is facing the opening bet both ways, heads up doesn't change this call.

7: Shuffle muck and stub together to make a new stub. 

8: Try to reconstruct the board, if you can get both players and/or dealer to agree on the four board cards put them back out.  Shuffle remaining cards to make a new stub and play on.

9: TDA doesn't expressly forbid talking.  My personal recommendation is to disallow the following things to be said though: Disclosure of one's hand, discussing the possibilities on the board (did you hit that flush?  do you have the Ace?).

10: I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear what is meant here.  Do you mean if A had 500 in front of him and there was a raise to say 1200 that the player could put in two 1000 chips and take back the 500 if done at same time but if he puts in the 2 1000 chips and doesn't take the 500 back right away that it would be a raise?  Someting to that effect?  Please clarify and I'll try to give my opinion.

11: When I enter hand-for-hand phase, if there is an all-in and a call I have the dealer hold the action and the players to keep their cards face down until all other hands are finished.  If the other tables know a player has been eliminated I feel it could affect play too greatly to know that if I fold I am in the money.  I think that is good practice if not standard practice.

12: I can agree with this.

13: They should have said something waaay earlier.  We are not going to back up button then skip forward or anything goofy like that.  Button moves to the next seat from where it currently is and we play on.

14: The right for that player to dispute the outcome of the previous hand is over once the dealer pressed the green button or began to shuffle the deck on this current hand.  Player A has 4000 chips, he's not getting any more.  Play on.

15: Full round penalty to B, C, and Z.  All three disclosed the contents of their hand with action still pending.  No one is getting chip refund, B's 10000 bet stands.

Guillaume, you always have the best/craziest scenarios!

[Brian Vickers]

Also, you have the best profile picture, by far!  Hope to see you again at the Summit this year!

[Nick C]

I can agree that situations 1 thru 6 would be covered by TDA #37. However, I can also understand why there is confusion. If verbal is binding, what difference does it make whether Player C "pushed" the lesser amount or announced it?
 
1- A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – (this, I know is a raise of 4000 to a total of 5000...we've had these discussions in the past and I know in Europe this is common) C didn’t pay attention and says “3000” (no chips yet pushed + another player D to speak behind) – ruling?

2-  A open bet 1000 – B Raises 5000 – C didn’t pay attention and pushes 3000 (while saying nothing + another player D to speak behind) – ruling? I'm not quite sure I understand + another player to speak behind.
 
The rule clearly states that chips put in the pot stay in the pot, but isn't saying 3000 the same? To me that's not clear.
 

[Guillaume Gleize]

First TY very much Bill, Brian and Nick for the answers and sorry for my late one: We all are overbooked trying to survive right?

OK ...

123456 ---> We all agree here for the "Open bet and HU only" bidding call cases but we desagree on the "Verbal only vs pushed chips": Nick and me do not mix a "verbal only undercall" with a "pushed undercall" ... No clear text nowhere about that!

7 ---> I agree with Brian: No split

8 ---> I desagree with Brian: I never look after card in the muck ... Even if all players & Dealer agree for the situation! "Goofy" solution as say someone (I love the word) ...

9 ---> I agree with the TDA: I hate this European silent rule at multipots!

10 ---> I was yes speaking of the player taking his change long time before (!) or after (!!) making is bet! For me any bet pushed in silence before taking back change oblige to let the change on the table!

11 ---> I wasn't clear: I wasn't speaking about the Hand by Hand but about the manager technics BEFORE IT (2 to 5 players or more before the Hand by Hand): Do you use technics to slow down and control the bubble and how do you call them?  

12 ---> I agree and follow you all (together with my friend TD who were right)!

13 ---> I agree and follow you all (together with my friend TD who were right)!

14 ---> What a rude (and so real) case: 4 solutions (or more possible):
A- PLAY THE ALL-IN AT 4000 (and give the rest after) or any close solution like Bill and maybe me.
B- PLAY THE ALL-IN AT 12000 (like did my friend)
C- CANCEL THE HAND (wrong situation and informations everywhere)
D- NO CHIP REFOUND FROM THE PREVIOUS HAND (too late) like Brian (and the old rules)
... We have to find a common solution some day

15 ---> Once again Brian strictly applie the old rules: No action cancelled! (only players punished next hand) ...

To Brian: Don't you think in those two late situations and facing HUGE amounts of money and famous players you would still follow the hard line? (My question is not ironic but really sincere and respectuous)?

Regards,
GG