PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Guillaume Gleize on September 26, 2010, 02:30:09 AM
-
Hello,
NLH tournament.
Two players at the river.
Player A bet ... player B calls.
Player A says "I fold" (he was on pure bluff) ... he throws his cards in the middle face down but while in the air they accidentaly turn faces up ... showing a surprise runner-runner straight nuts!
Player B show trips (he had the nuts at the flop) and call for the floor ... saying that the hand of player A was dead.
I ruled the hand of player A "ALIVE" and so winning! Explaining that the word "FOLD" at showdown isn't an official word as long as the dealer do not follow it and actually KILL the hand mixing it with the MUCK (right?) and that AIR returning cards doesn't matter: we only look the way the cards LAND on the table.
I hate those unwritten situations but did choose my solution ... what do you think?
GG
-
Assuming neither player was all-in, player A's clear intention (verbal and physical action) was to fold and my ruling would be that player A's hand was dead.
Best,
-
Where do you get these situations from? We went over this in an earlier post and, once again, there were all differing opinions. Mine remains the same. If the owner of the hand surrenders his hand into the muck, or in the direction of the muck, his hand is dead. Especially if he says "I fold," or "I'm out" or "it's yours" or "I surrender" or "I lost, take it" while tossing the hand. I don't care how they happen to become exposed. I can't believe that really happened. If I were dealing, I would have mucked them as soon as "the air" turned them over
-
Has everyone here forgotten about TDA Rule #8?
"8. Declarations
Cards speak. Verbal declarations as to the content of a player's hand are not binding; however, any player deliberately miscalling his or her hand may be penalized."
I agree with GG's original ruling.
Nick and MaxH, would you feel any differently if you knew that Player A, had only played twice before in home games and this was that players first live tournament as opposed to a player with years of experience and tens or hundreds of tournaments?
-
agreed with Chet,
the hand has reached showdown - players may well be able to muck inferior cards, however at showdown there is no such thing as 'folding' as you can onlt fold when facing a bet, GG's ruling is sound and I would of ruled exactly the same, I would remind you also of rule 8 of allowing cards to speak for themselves. Where they have flipped over by accident, they can then speak for themselves and claim the pot if they are winning.
Regards
Stuart
-
gentlemen,
I think rule #8 was written for players that miscall their hands. The hand must be confirmed by the dealer and other players. I don't think it is intended for a player that wants to throw his hand into the muck. If the owner of the hand concedes his hand, I believe that there is a proper procedure for showing the hand if requested. If not, then why don't we just turn them all over at the showdown and waste some more time.
-
Chet,
I also don't believe that rule 8 applies in these situations. IMHO it covers the miscalling of hands whether deliberate or not.
In the case of an inexperienced player I would take that into account in certain situations, for example, in deciding whether to apply a penalty or how severe a penalty would be; however, in what I see as clear breaches of the rules, I would not tend to take inexperience into consideration.
First, it encourages endless debates of the, 'You allowed it for XYZ' last month' type and I really don't possess the judgement of Solomon needed to assess what constitutes inexperience: is it the playing of one tournament or ten? The second reason is that it confuses players and I believe the clearer and firmer the rules: the better the game.
That is not to say that I don't have a degree of sympathy with inexperienced players but we don't allow them to break the rules (knowingly or unknowingly) in soccer, tennis, football et al.
Best,
-
Stuart,
It is a valid point you make about showdown but you do allow a player to muck an inferior hand and this was the intention here and would have been accepted as a legitimate action if the cards were not turned over accidentally.
In my mind (and I may be wrong) it is one thing to say 'I have nothing' and turn the cards over - that's a clear case of letting the cards speak. However, saying 'fold' and pitching the cards into the muck is surely the end of the hand irrespective of the cards being face up in the muck.
Best,
-
In this case I will really listen to you all and I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT SURE to have made the good decision.
Apparently, two of you support my decision and two disagree ... I respect ANY opinion and would dream to have a definitive solution.
I love this professional forum because unlike some other "battlefields of insults" the people here do not JUGE the question itself nor the players, dealers or floors involved in tne case: THEY JUST TRY TO FIND A LOGICAL SOLUTION.
I suffered so much in other forums from answers of the kind: "If this player (or dealer) do make such errors: he shouldn't be admitted in your tournament!" ... LOL ... thank you very much for helping!
Here we work for technical solutions ... and I love it!
With all my respect,
GG
-
Nick and MaxH, this subject has already been given considerable discussion in these threads:
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=165.0
Until being educated by MikeB I would of ruled the hand dead, but now have a better understanding of the showdown.
Regards
Stuart
-
Thanks for the links, Stuart, I knew I had seen something on this before.
I admit to being better educated now but sadly am none the wiser :-)
Unless it's an all-in, I have never seen a player verbally and by their actions muck a hand and then be allowed to retrieve it to win a pot as MikeB says he would allow in the link. This doesn't mean that it is not a correct ruling but surely the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Regards,
-
MaxH,
I agree with you 100%. I don't know why so many members are going out of their way to complicate a simple rule. There are many situations that fall under the catagoies of "comon sense," or "poker etiquette." We can't create a new rule for every irregularity that takes place in a card room. Start out with basic house rules. Example; No Smoking, No Swearing, No Dealer or Player Abuse. Act in Turn and Protect Your Own Hand. If you don't know the game, you'd better learn it because there are penalties for offending players.
Players that break the rules deliberately, or with intent, should not be allowed to play in any tournament. New players to the game should be given a warning first. However, once they have been told, a repeated offense can only be considered deliberate.
-
Max, the rule is clear:
Dead Hands
Your Hand is Declared dead if:
- You fold or announce fold when facing a bet or raise
At showdown, it is just that a showdown, announcing that you fold or other phrases has no bearing as it is the showdown, I was actually TD at an event in Aberdeen a few months ago and in the Granite City, when a showdown is reached all players must table their cards, which had it's merits and it's drawbacks, but nonetheless was their rules. Perhaps a bit archiaic but does demonstrate the showdown properly.
Mucking your hand at showdown is merely an option the TDA and most other rules allow for a player with an inferior hand. Cards are always live at showdown until such time as they are killed into the muck by the dealer.
Regards
Stuart
-
Stuart,
Are you saying that we should always turn over our cards at the end of a hand? If that's what the rule is then why don't they just say it.
Example; At the showdown (when all of the betting is done), all players that were in for all bets (including all-in) will expose their hole cards face-up for all to see. Then there is no question as to what a rule is trying to say. Until that happens, I think the only logical thing to do, is allow a player to release and muck their hand when they see a hand that is better than theirs.
-
I disagree with Stuart in that I don't believe this is a showdown situation, since neither player was 'all-in'. My point however, is that once Player A's cards went 'face up', then rule #8 comes into play, since his verbal declaration is not binding.
I agree with Nick that Player A's cards should not have been turned face up, but they were and in that case Rule #8 applies and "Cards Speak".
Hope this helps!!
-
Hello,
NLH tournament.
Two players at the river.
Player A bet ... player B calls.
Player A says "I fold" (he was on pure bluff) ... he throws his cards in the middle face down but while in the air they accidentaly turn faces up ... showing a surprise runner-runner straight nuts!
Player B show trips (he had the nuts at the flop) and call for the floor ... saying that the hand of player A was dead.
I ruled the hand of player A "ALIVE" and so winning! Explaining that the word "FOLD" at showdown isn't an official word as long as the dealer do not follow it and actually KILL the hand mixing it with the MUCK (right?) and that AIR returning cards doesn't matter: we only look the way the cards LAND on the table.
I hate those unwritten situations but did choose my solution ... what do you think?
GG
I like your reasoning. Keep in mind the player B is always going to be understandably disappointed and protest that the guys hand can't be tabled, that's human nature.
-
Late to the Party here but I had this same situation happen in the 2002 WSOP where I killed Russell Rosenbloom's hand with because he was away from the table and announced fold. I believe that verbal declarations in turn are binding just like him saying "call" I think his "fold" has to take precedent and the hand id dead.
-
Matt,
I think this is the situation you are referring to, right?:
http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director/verbal_action.html
The circumstances there were (arguably) significantly different than the hand being discussed in this thread. In your 2002 WSOP hand, Rosenbloom was facing action; the hand had not reached showdown. Rosenbloom could either call or fold. He made a verbal declaration of his action. And enforcing that verbal declaration seems pretty straightforward (even if the circumstances made it a difficult ruling).
In the hand being discussed, all action was complete, and showdown had been reached. Neither player had any action pending. They did not have the option to check/call, bet/raise, or fold. Well, at least they clearly did not have the option to check/call or bet/raise. The crux of the debate (or at least part of it) is whether they had the option to "fold" in the same sense as when action was pending.
If you believe that the option to fold/muck at showdown is the same as the option to fold when facing action in a betting round, then a verbal declaration of "fold" should be treated as binding in both cases.
On the other hand, if you believe the option to fold/muck at showdown is merely a courtesy extended to players who don't want to reveal their losing hands/bluffs and thereby speed the game along and keep emotions in check, then with no action pending, there is no action that can be verbally declared, and the (tabled) cards alone determine the winner.
The TDA rules are not 100% clear on this issue, but I feel that Rule 8 ("Cards Speak") suggests the latter -- i.e., saying "fold" at showdown is not binding, and the winner is determined by the tabled cards. I prefer this interpretation.
The second issue -- and I think it should be addressed separately -- has to do with determining when cards are validly "tabled" to be eligible to compete at showdown. And the main question is: does intent matter? If intent does not matter, then any cards that get face-up at showdown -- no matter how -- can compete for the pot. If intent does matter, then if there is a dispute, the TD will have to make a determination based on the totality of the circumstances (including the player's verbal statements) as to the player's intent, and if it is determined that the player intended to muck and not table their cards, the TD would rule the hand dead.
I prefer the interpretation that intent does not matter, so any face-up hand at showdown competes for the pot no matter what. It's a cleaner interpretation which does not depend on a judgment call from the TD as to a player's intent. But either interpretation is reasonable.
If the TDA's goal is consistency in all tournaments, you might considering clarifying these two showdown issues in the next edition.
-
Thanks Matt for your advice (even if it confuse me more lol!)!
Thanks also to Oddvark to have clearly exposed the situation & options.
While waiting for a definitive TDA rule at showdown, here are the options we use at our tournaments:
1) At showdown the word "fold" ( as "raise" "call" "check" obviously) means NOTHING and are not biding. To say "fold" or to throw your cards faces down will just make the dealer burning it ... so if you change your mind you just must do it QUICKLY (before the hand is actually mucked)!
2) At showdown if you throw your cards faces down the rest depend HOW it happen:
a) YOU decide to finally recover it (before mucked) and turn it faces up: THEY ARE ALIVE!
b) THE WIND OR ANY ACCIDENTAL MOVE turn it faces up: THEY ARE ALIVE!
b) THE ACTUAL WINNER return it faces up (by error) : THEY ARE ALIVE!
b) THE DEALER, ANY OTHER PLAYER IN OR OUT OF THE HAND (other than the actual winner) return it faces up (by error): THEY ARE DEAD!
We don't pretend to be right: we only have to rule our tourneys waiting for a definitive TDA rule.
Donno for you but here the SHOWDOWNS are the place of a lot of misunderstanding ... let's make it clear!
With best regards,
Guillaume Gleize.