http://www.thehendonmob.com/who_wins_the_pot_and_why"During the Barcelona EPT Roland De Wolfe and Tobias Reinkemeier got involved in a pot when they were both on the blinds. Following action on all streets Tobais check called an 80,000 bet from Roland. Roland said’ king high’ and flashed a king. Tobias sat and waited for Roland to show his second card. Roland did not turn over both his cards but instead pushed them over the line and towards the muck. They went into the muck but the dealer retrieved them and turned them both over. There is no doubt that the two cards were Rolands. Tobais jumped up and turned over Q high (Q6) claiming that Roland had mucked and the pot was his."
The authors ultimately agreed that technically, the rules supported Thomas' ruling that the hand was dead, but that
they would like to see the rules clarified to reflect Matt Savage's position, which was:
"1. I want the best hand to win called pots whenever possible.
2. His cards were both retrievable AND identifiable. If the dealer had simply killed his hand without seeing the other card then his hand would have been dead and I would have awarded you the pot.
3. ... the FACT that you asked to see his hand makes him have to show his hand and if it beats you than you lose your claim to the pot."
In general, I would agree with Thomas' ruling, and I don't agree with Matt's position in this case. I do not think that the rules should be clarified to reflect the above position, or at least not point #2, as suggested by the authors of that article.
First, in my view, it is important to note that it was Tobias that called Roland's bet. By voluntarily committing chips to see the river bet, I think Tobias, as the caller is entitled to the following:
A. to see the hand that he called (Roland's cards), and to wait until those cards are shown.
B. to accept his opponent's surrender (i.e. if Roland chooses to muck).
C. to accept his opponent's surrender AND ask to see his mucked hand [I don't really like this rule, but it's currently the rule].
What the caller is not entitled to do is misrepresent his hand, to trick the opponent into thinking he is beat when he is not.
Unless Tobias did actually say "I have an Ace", or something to that effect,
I think Roland is perfectly within his right to surrender his hand, which is what his actions clearly show him doing. He chose to fold, because presumably, he did not want to reveal the nature of his hand (by showing the second card) and possibly leak an aspect of his playing strategy. In my view, it does not matter that the cards were identifiable and retrievable. And, it does not matter that the dealer turned them over. Roland clearly
chose to fold, period. He is entitled to weigh the cost of possibly losing the pot to an inferior hand versus having to show both cards and thus reveal an aspect of his strategy.
How different would it have been if Tobias did not immediately table his Queen-high hand? If he simply let the dealer show Roland's hand, there would have been no issue, Tobias would have been pushed the pot, and the hand would have been sent back to the muck. (Is Matt's point #3 even the rule anymore? I think in a tournament, mucked cards are not live if a player wants to see them, and just because the dealer prevents the cards from being mixed into the muck so that they may be shown, they should still be dead - our dealers are instructed to "kill" the cards by tapping them on the muck)
IF the rule were to be changed to give "retrievable and identifiable" cards a second chance to "come back to life" in a situation such as this, it would give Roland the best of both worlds - he could effectively fold to keep his hand secret and assume that his opponent will be happy to win the pot and rescind his request to see the hand, but then also rely on the changed rule to bring it back from the dead and be given a second chance to win the pot --
even when he voluntarily chooses to fold.
Now if Tobias did misrepresent his hand by saying "I have an Ace" or something to that effect, I think that is relevant. If he then turned over Q-high, I would find that it was sufficient that the K was shown to take the pot.
Voluntarily surrendering the pot by mucking, in the absence of dealer error and misinformation, should trump all considerations, and I think that it should be a general rule of thumb that no player should ever be permitted to act in a way that gives him two chances to win the pot.
By the way, the jumping up and down afterwards by Tobias would appear to be unsportsmanlike conduct to me, and under an "excessive celebration" rule or something similar, I would have given him a penalty.
Thoughts?