Author Topic: showdown with forward motion fold  (Read 5037 times)

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
showdown with forward motion fold
« on: August 31, 2013, 10:41:02 AM »
This is the situation:
Hero and BTN involved in the hand,
Board is A K 7  4  3
Hero has 45
At the river, hero bets, BTN raises, hero calls.
Now comes the problema:
At showdown,  BTN  that should show his hand, simply tosses his cards to the dealer, showing only one card, K, congratulating hero on the call.
Dealer here didn't do nothing, and a third player (???) took the other card and put it face up.
Hero still has got his cards protected.
Floor is called:
I would decide for a FOLD.
I'lL write here my motivations after your answers.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 10:43:31 AM by Luca P. »
Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Vincenzo Morabito

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2013, 10:56:10 AM »
After Bet>Call the actions are fixed. Write about fold is wrong. The Player has no reason to declare his will. This is a mechanical Muck question and there is a clear  TDA rule.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2013, 07:58:08 AM »
Hello Luca P and welcome Vincenzo.

 Let's look at what went wrong; the BTN should have turned both cards face up. When he only showed one card, the dealer should insist that the BTN show both cards.

 The other player (not competing for the pot) should never have touched, let alone, turn over the face down card. The dealer should also have tried to prevent the other player from touching the unexposed card.

 If I were dealing, I would have protected the unexposed card and called the floor. I would have told the floor that the BTN only turned one card and let the floor make the call.

 I also agree with the hand being mucked and I would have awarded the pot to the HERO.

« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 06:45:42 PM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2013, 08:19:35 AM »
This is the situation: Hero and BTN involved in the hand, Board is A K 7  4  3; Hero has 45.

At the river, hero bets, BTN raises, hero calls.

Now comes the problema: At showdown,  BTN  that should show his hand, simply tosses his cards to the dealer, showing only one card, K, congratulating hero on the call.

The TDA is not definitive at this stage in the example. 1) While BTN would be the first to show in an order of show, he can elect to muck his cards (Rule 16, 2013); 2) If the house doesn't have a forward motion/ "mucking line" rule to kill cards at showdown, then the K and the downcard are still live and BTN can request to table them if 100% retrievable. (Rule 14, 2013).

The TDA does imply that the correct dealer procedure is to immediately push BTNs cards into the muckpile (Rule 14, 2013), but for whatever reason he fails to do that.

Dealer here didn't do nothing, and a third player (???) took the other card and put it face up.
Hero still has got his cards protected.
Floor is called:
I would decide for a FOLD.
I'lL write here my motivations after your answers.
The TDA also doesn't have a single rule on this either. If you listen to the video from Summit VI you will hear two very clear schools of thought, between which neither a consensus or super-majority could be achieved in 2013:

School 1 might be considered "old school", along the lines of the long-standing language from Robert's Rules Version 11, Section 3 General Rules, The Showdown, Paragraph 5:
"5. Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing playerís hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

Applying the school 1 interpretation to your example, I think the closest analog is that the player who (inappropriately) reached out and tabled BTN's non-tabled card was "a player other than the pot winner". And under this language BTN's hand would be dead because he had mucked it forward. IF the cards were still in his possession, however, most houses would rule the hand live. Almost every house (and TDA penalty rules) would give a penalty to the uninvolved player for tabling the card also.

School 2 believes that "all cards tabled at the showdown are live". This school wants to get away from the "dealer tapping the muck" ritual, and doesn't want to have to parse whether a hand was shown by request of the presumptive winner or anyone else with a right or privilege to request to see the hand. This school sees all cards live as being a cleaner solution to all forms of showdown tabling.

Well during and after the Summit there was alot of controversy on this, so for now IMO this one falls under TD discretion.

Postscript: You say you would rule a "fold" here; and by that you mean that BTNs hand is dead. Fair enough, that's entirely within your prerogative under TDA rules as they are currently written IMO. But that does raise yet another not-so-minor issue, also not fully defined: Does "fold" mean anything at showdown? There are two schools on that one also: School 1 says that cards speak is the only standard at showdown; that "fold" is an action that applies only when facing a bet. Fold implies that a hand is immediately dead even if the cards are still identifiable whereas "muck" or "release cards forward" at showdown does not imply immediately dead cards unless the house rules so stipulate. School 2 says that if a player at showdown makes a verbal statement of capitulation such as "I fold", that declaration is as binding at showdown as it would be during a betting round.

Summit VI took huge steps on rules related to the showdown at Summit VI, but as you can see from the above, there is still some "cleanup" work to be done in the future.

Thanks for the great question.

BTW: my personal answer: My heart is with School 1 that still uses the old RRoP rule, but my head is with School 2 that wants the cleaner language that "all cards revealed at showdown are live". In this case I'm narrowly going with my heart because that old language is so well-established. Over-turning it, IMO, must be done carefully if at all. But that's just one person's opinion, there is a large contingent in School 2 and they make an excellent case for their position.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 08:34:16 AM by MikeB »

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2013, 01:05:48 PM »
Very interesting situation!

I personally subscribe to the school of thought that, generally, all tabled cards at showdown remain live.  However, this usually involves the player himself turning the cards over for whatever reason, after they have been thrown forward.  I don't think the act of tossing a hand forward should automatically kill the hand; however, dealers really need to muck those hands ASAP (e.g. for all the reasons Nick points out above).  

I personally don't think that the "school 1" interpretation should apply in this case -- there is a difference between a third player requesting to see a hand and actually handling the card and turning it over.  I am much less inclined to revive a hand headed towards the muck whenever a third player intervenes. This is primarily for game security reasons -- will we always be 100% sure that the card another player is turning over was actually the BTN's card?  Will there be any doubt that no sleight of hand was involved?  

Protecting one's hand requires maintaining control over one's cards: this includes ensuring that other players' cards do not get mixed in with your own, that you don't mix your own cards with another player's cards or the muck if the cards are to remain live, and certainly, that no other players are handling your cards when the cards are still live. Players are also expected to table their own hands. Usually, there will be no suspicion of foul play, but I think there will be plenty of occasions where you cannot be 100% sure.

In any event, I would definitely lean towards killing the BTN's hand, and the third player who intervened would be getting a penalty here for sure.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 03:46:59 PM by K-Lo »

Luca P.

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • Alea Casino Nottingham
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2013, 06:06:30 AM »
I decided for "fold" (that in this case is not the correct word, since we at showdown) for several reasons.
First, I assume that forward motion is binding: if we consider this situation, which is the movement a player would do to fold his cards? Tossing in front of him face down is a fold, or even tossing his cards in front of him near the dealer with one card face up.
Would you say that he wanted to show his winning hand in that way?
Maybe not so many players know that they must protect their cards. This situation leads me to think that this player didn't want to protect his hand.
Also, why would a player toss his cards near the dealer if he thinks he is good?
You could answer me saying "maybe he didn't read his hand and needed to be helped by dealer or other players"
That's fine, but then again, if a player is not sure about his hand, should not throws his cards away, also because TDA states that poker is a game of attention.

Now, let's move to the third player who turned face up the second card.
I don't consider it a key part of the analysis because I proceeded for steps:
1) player tossed his hand away 2) it's a forward motion (binding for me to a fold for the consideration written above) 3) hero still has his cards protected.
So I think that the act of turning the card (done by a third actor) is not relevant.
We must enforce a penality (I think 10 hand penality) to him (for a player should never ever touch somebody else's cards)

Also, TDA says: "it's a player responsability to make his intentions clear"
The action done by the raiser is not so much clear for me.


Card Room Manager

Alea Casino
108 Upper Parliament Street
Nottingham
NG1 6LF
Tel 0115 871 7288

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2013, 06:25:08 AM »
Luca P,

 Bravo! I like your thought process. The only part of your reply that I would question is your statement regarding the third player: " I don't consider it a key part of the analysis...." I think you must. Hopefully the second card will not alter the winner. However, even though the third player had no right to turn the card himself, if the BTN proved to have the best hand, the decision then becomes more complicated. We do have rules that allow hands to remain live until they are actually in the muck.

 I do agree, wholeheartedly, that any player tossing his cards forward (not face up), in the direction of the muck, has a dead hand.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2013, 10:52:10 AM »
I would rule the hand dead, reluctantly, and give the third player a penalty.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Vincenzo Morabito

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2013, 06:02:53 PM »
Pro Live Cards
1.      BTN has the winning hand
2.      Uninvolved player causes a mistake (Can we reasonably think that the btn, without a not involved external intervention, could recover his cards)
3.      The actions are fixed and no more bets are facing
4.      Cards Speak
5.      No muckpile is involved in action

Pro Muck
1.    Moving forward face down is always considered a muck, in any case. (We canít have an arbitrary parameter by the cardís range from the dealer)  
2.    There is additional actions detected from the player after the technical Bet > Raise > Call.
3.    Card protection
4.       We canít always be 100% sure that the card another player is turning over was the owner's card (K-Lo)

Problems:
1.   Everytime that dealer does not assists the player, it can result in an issue or conflict among the players.
2.   Floorman cannot recognizes the player's intentions easily
3.     If you call it dead, it would actually encourage another player to flip that card over in order to kill the first players hand! (Tristan)

I agree with the great analysis of Mike. I think that the best way to cut a lot of potential errors is to establish a clear  ďhouse muck detection ruleĒ to explicitly detect when a hand is dead or not after the final action round.

IMO I would respect the Muckpile ritual, in the absence of a house rules or a pending action.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 07:21:45 PM by Vincenzo Morabito »

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2013, 06:29:27 PM »
Oh wait.  For some reason when I read this the first time, I thought he mucked his cards face down to the dealer and then another player flipped one.  

So he actually showed one card and it was technically a winner.  We have the dealers tell the players, in situations like this, that they need to show the other card in order to win the pot.  I would not rule the hand dead here.  If you call it dead, it would actually encourage another player to flip that card over in order to kill the first players hand! A penalty could be a small price to pay if the pot is big enough.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 08:36:20 PM by Tristan »
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2013, 07:04:00 PM »
Tristan, don't feel so bad, I missed it too!  :-[ How, I don't know but it sure does change my ruling.
The question now becomes; how much protection are dealers supposed to give players? If the dealer kills the unexposed card, even though the KING was best, the player did not protect his hand and must have two cards to win. If the dealer prevents the third player from touching the card, and calls the floor, the card would probably be boarded at some point and the best hand would win. Unfortunately, the way the hand played out; A penalty for the third player, and the pot to the undeserving dummy #1 because dummy #2 grabbed his card and turned it over when he had no right to do so.




MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2013, 11:17:17 PM »
I decided for "fold" (that in this case is not the correct word, since we at showdown) for several reasons.
First, I assume that forward motion is binding: if we consider this situation, which is the movement a player would do to fold his cards? Tossing in front of him face down is a fold, or even tossing his cards in front of him near the dealer with one card face up.
Would you say that he wanted to show his winning hand in that way?
Maybe not so many players know that they must protect their cards. This situation leads me to think that this player didn't want to protect his hand.
Also, why would a player toss his cards near the dealer if he thinks he is good?
You could answer me saying "maybe he didn't read his hand and needed to be helped by dealer or other players"
That's fine, but then again, if a player is not sure about his hand, should not throws his cards away, also because TDA states that poker is a game of attention.

Now, let's move to the third player who turned face up the second card.
I don't consider it a key part of the analysis because I proceeded for steps:
1) player tossed his hand away 2) it's a forward motion (binding for me to a fold for the consideration written above) 3) hero still has his cards protected.
So I think that the act of turning the card (done by a third actor) is not relevant.
We must enforce a penality (I think 10 hand penality) to him (for a player should never ever touch somebody else's cards)

Also, TDA says: "it's a player responsability to make his intentions clear"
The action done by the raiser is not so much clear for me.


Luca: given that your house rules have a forward motion / mucking line at showdown (see in red above), then 2013 TDA Rule 14-B applies. Not every house uses a forward motion rule at showdown, so that's a very important distinction that you point out. Thanks again for the post.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2013, 10:43:14 AM »
I am also confused too.  I thought that the player was clearly showing one card AND folding.  In that case, the dealer should be sweeping all cards into the muck.  If, on the other hand, it is his turn to show and so far he is tabling what appears to be the winning the hand, the player should be directed to table the other card.  In this particular instance, I might very well rule the hand live, and would award the pot if the other player could not show the better hand.

This situation reminds me of EPT Barcelona and the De Wolfe/Reinkemeier incident... Remember that?  Ugly.  In that case, there was also a "half-fold", cards touching the muck, an opponent tabling a worse hand, and a dealer tabling the face-down card for the first player.  I think Thomas Kremser ruled that the fold was binding, but I believe that there were other TDs who would have let the hand play based on the video footage.  In the absence of a forward motion rule, this is a tough call.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3172
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2013, 11:57:13 AM »
Ken, here is the link for those that have never seen the hand from Barcelona in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2agX80ZyE

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2013, 02:59:24 AM »
Hello,

Strangely I had to speak about this situation in my next post "Protecting the players or not"!

Again I appreciate very much the clarifications and examples of Mike B everywhere!

OK:

About the showdown muck situations here is our "school":

There is no "fold "at showdown ... only players "mucking" their cards. We ask our dealers to actually muck thoses hands ASAP. While mucked faces down and still retrievable on the table, the cards are in an "intermediate" situation and can be suddenly killed or brought back to life. Thereby before the dealer can actually mix them with the muck and while the cards are still 100% retrievable, if they are returned by:

A) The owner - the wind - the actual winner ---> The hand is alive!
B) The dealer - any other player (or crazy spectator etc) ---> The hand is dead!

So we follow tha TDA 14A general rule but with the limitation of our B) killing rules for the following reasons:
1) The free interpretation that the TDA still let us choose in this very specific situations (until the next summit lol).
2) The old RRoP references.
3) The Rolland de Wolf case.
4) What we think is the "best interest of the game".

GG