POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Non-TDA Tournament and General Poker Rules Discussion

Floor Call situation: Cards are scrambled at Showdown, will one card play ?

<< < (2/2)

Uniden32:

--- Quote from: Nick C on May 14, 2016, 07:24:38 PM ---How would you handle the same situation but, the intermingled cards did not contain an indication that the all-in were beaten?

--- End quote ---


1.  If no combination of the intermingled cards could be constructed to beat the all-in hand, I would award the pot to the all-in.

2.  If there were possible combinations that could be the all-in hand, I would again call surveillance:

* If surveillance was inconclusive, I would award the pot to the all-in.
* If surveillance was conclusive, I would award the pot to the winning hand.3.  If only one card would be enough to beat the all-in (as in the original scenario), AND surveillance was inconclusive of who's card it was, I am leaning towards eliminating the all-in, and removing the chips (pot) from play.

MikeB:
Den: Very interesting case.

IMO Rule 13 requires each hand at showdown to be fully tabled and identifiable as in "all cards", not just one card. If the cams cannot establish a full hand (i.e. they can only establish one card), I'd award the pot to the only fully identifiable hand: the all-in player in this case.

Let us say, for example, there were two players in this hand (the all-in and the BB), and at showdown the all-in fully tabled a Jack-Queen and the BB showed the ace and mucked his other card face down directly and irretrievably into the muck... of course we'd rule the BB's hand dead, not because we don't know the Ace beats whatever the all-in has, but because the BB didn't properly table.

Very important- basic- event management case, thanks again.

Nick C:
Mike,

 Even under the category of non-TDA rules it would be tough to kill that hand.

 Showing a winning card and irretrievably mucking the other card only to have the pot awarded to the losing all-in player...hmm. I don't like that call at all.

 

MikeB:
That's the point, the all-in player isn't "losing", the other hands are dead because the we don't know all downcards of either hand (Rule 13), and therefore they weren't tabled.

In addition to TDA 13, Robert's Rules Section 3 General Rules, Dead Hands para 3 states: "Cards thrown into another player's hand are dead, whether faceup or facedown".

Section 3 Irregularities, para. 2 states: "If you fail to protect your hand you will have no redress if it becomes fouled". TDA 60 has similar language: "A player must protect his hand at all times, including at showdown while waiting for the hand to be read. If... a hand is fouled and cannot be identified to 100% certainty, the player has no redress".  We don't have 100% certainty as to what the two hands were, despite checking the cameras.

From memory I think the original Las Vegas Hilton Book of Poker Rules did allow a player to win with one card in holdem if there was no reason to believe he did not at one time have a full hand, but I haven't seen a similar rule since.

Nick C:
Mike,

 I know that cash game rules are different from tournaments but this one does not sit well with me. I guess we can say that anything goes in some cash games. Having been a stud player back in Vegas in the early 80's, I can say I never agreed with the rules that you mentioned about "cards thrown into another players hand, whether face up or face down." I still don't get it, killing a players hand because his up cards are intermingled with discards from another player makes for suspicion of foul play, if you ask me.

 You might be right about that rule where you can still win with less cards than the game requires but, I thought it (the rule) pertained to stud.

 The more I read on this subject, the more I want to lobby for a "must show" on all called hands at showdown...tournament poker, of course.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page