Author Topic: Addendum to rule 60: Add language which covers accidentally exposed cards  (Read 2522 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Up until a few years ago, when a player was folding their hand and it accidentally was exposed, I simply instructed my dealers to announce the mucked hand and move on; just like in a cash game.  While participating in a large tournament event, the staff were issuing penalties for accidentally exposed cards.  I had never seen this before and spoke to the staff about it.  I don't know why it never really clicked with me before, but I agree with the discussion that took place.  Essentially, why would it matter how a card was exposed (meaning intentionally or not)?  An exposed hand could have a big impact on remaining action, therefore we should hold our players accountable for folding their cards not just "properly" but also face down. 

Rule 60 currently states : "A player who exposes his cards with action pending may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand. When folding, cards should be pushed forward low to the table, not deliberately exposed or tossed high (“helicoptered”). See also Rule 57."

What I propose is simply an addendum which clarifies that intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter.

A player who intentionally or unintentionally exposes his cards with action pending, may incur a penalty, but will not have a dead hand. The penalty will begin at the end of the hand. When folding, cards should be pushed forward low to the table, not deliberately exposed or tossed high (“helicoptered”). See also Rule 57.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Brian, I agree with your proposal, however, in addition I'd like the penalty to be automatic. The word "may" must be removed, and replaced with: "will" before any players will get the message. Protect your cards, whether in the hand or not.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
I would support "intentionally or haphazardly ... may incur a penalty." I don't like "will incur." I agree that it is important for players to be careful but unless you hold the cards flat on the table and push gently forward accidents will happen that shouldn't warrant a penalty.  The cards bounce off the chips or the dealer.  Sometimes they simply catch a zephyr as players flick the cards into the muck.  I don't agree with imposing a penalty in cases that are clearly accidental.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill:

 A normal response when a card is "accidentally" exposed, or flashed, should come from the dealer in the way of announcing the card to the table...like a "show one, show all." I can agree with you that an accidental exposure of a card can occur, but like Brian said: " An exposed hand could have a big impact on remaining action, therefore we should hold our players accountable for folding their cards not just "properly" but also face down."

 The fact is: any exposed card with action pending, intentional or not, may put certain players in a very compromising position. Consider holding the second "nut" flush...during the betting round, a folding player "exposes" the only card that could beat you. Now what? The other players could easily be at risk of losing chips that they never would lose if that card were not exposed.

 I can understand your support for using "may occur" as opposed to "will occur" but the problem will very often be determining "if" or "when" the flashed card were truly accidental or deliberate. Giving your "buddy" a glimpse of your hand, while mucking, is not that difficult.  We need to discourage any possibility for collusion.

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
I can understand your support for using "may occur" as opposed to "will occur" but the problem will very often be determining "if" or "when" the flashed card were truly accidental or deliberate. Giving your "buddy" a glimpse of your hand, while mucking, is not that difficult.  We need to discourage any possibility for collusion.

Nick, I understand your position as well and I think we will simply agree to disagree here.  I prefer "may" as it discourages collusion and allows the TD to impose the penalty WHEN justified.  I think "will" essentially forces the TD into penalty that IS MOST OFTEN unjustified.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Bill,
 You make a strong case on your behalf. I hope we can agree on some of the other debatable situations, I'd rather have you in my corner than an opponent !  ;D