PokerNews reported on a ruling made in the $50K Player's Championships:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htmI would briefly summarize the essential facts as follows:
1. The game is PLO. Before the flop is dealt, Player A is all-in. Player B announces "all-in", but given that he can raise only the amount of pot, he could not actually go all-in given his chip stack, and is deemed to raise the pot.
2. Player C has player B covered. After a long, long delay, he eventually announces "call". All players turn over their cards, and the board is dealt out. A wins the main pot, B wins the side pot.
3. It is then pointed out that C merely "called" and B was never actually "all-in". Chaos ensues. The floor is called for a ruling.
The first floorperson ruled that since action on the flop was not complete, the turn and river must be redealt. Understandably, A appealed this ruling.
The second floorperson ruled that there was "accepted action" by all parties, and so in respect of the side pot, C must pay off the balance of B's deemed all-in wager.
Comments on this situation? Can we get to the same place using TDA rules or is it a "Rule 1" situation? I like the final ruling -- I can't see how B or C can argue that they should not be all-in after flipping over their cards and letting the board run out. The first floorperson's decision is terrible, IMO. I hate giving players two chances to win a pot, especially when there is more than enough time for a player to bring attention to any irregularity in the deal before the entire board is dealt.
This type of situation and variations of it happens more often than one might think. A player is close to being all-in, but is not actually all-in for whatever reason, and another player "calls" and everyone flips over their cards. Technically, an "all-in" has not been "called" but surely everybody thinks it is in all-in situation since all cards are flipped over. TDA does have a rule that all cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete, i.e. all-in with no further betting -> flip over all hands. Why shouldn't the converse be true? i.e. when all cards are turned faced-up because all players believe this is in all-in situation, then all players will be deemed to be all-in regardless of the prior betting action.