hi all,
We are in the tournament play, the river card was dealt and there are still 4 players remaining.
Player A bets 500
Player B calls
Player C throws away his cards so badly, that they both ended up face up on the table. (his hand is dead, cause he folded)
Player D is the next to act now, but he waits.
At this moment Player B thought it is a showdown situation, because he saw 2 cards face up on the table. He exposes his cards. It all happend quite fast and
dealer did not take any action. Player C, who is no longer in the game starts to shout and claims , that the hand of Player B should be killed.
At this time the floorman is called to make rulling. The floorman ruled the hand of player B live, he gave a penalty to player C for making too much noise and talking, when he is no longer in the hand. (player C is a regular guest and he is very often too loud), thats why no warning.
I completely agree with a ruling here, however I have a question to ask.
In my opinion, it is an unfair advantage for player D, who knows the content of 2 hands, before he makes his decision on this betting round.
For this reason, I would bring the action back to player A, allow him to withdraw his bet and reconsider his action. Folowing his "new" action, I would let the player B to
either withdraw his bet and fold or continue playing with exposed cards with all options opened. The player D, would be the last to act.
Do you think this ruling would be acceptable and fair, or you think otherwise?
I was not the floorman making the ruling, and all the players kept their decision. At the end, the player D just folded and the hand was over.
Your opinions pls,
regards
RobinK
I