POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS > Discussion of Rules by Specific Game Types
I constantly hear that an abandoned all-in must be shown. Where is this rule?
Nick C:
There is always discussion about the all-in player, that leaves the table before the showdown. With each response, reference was ALWAYS preceeded by; " An all-in player's hand must be tabled!" More discussion would follow, as to who should turn over the cards if the owner of the hand refuses, or is absent from the table?
Where is the tournament rule, that overrides TDA rule's #22 , that mentions the all-in must be shown?
chet:
Nick:
I know of no such rule either. However, there may be local gaming authority or house rules that require this to be done.
Also, remember that implementation or adoption of any or all TDA rules is voluntary. The TDA has no "Authority" to require adoption/adherence of the rules it promulgates, other than peer pressure and the expertise of the TDA Board of Directors and Membership.
Now to play Devil's Advocate:
In the case you bring up there are some TDA Rules that APPEAR to conflict with one-another. You bring up rules 22 and 23, which basically require a player to be present at a table to have a live hand. Do you agree that perhaps these rules conflict (IN THIS SITUATION) with rules 9 and 10, which basically require that in an all-in situation all hands be tabled and that the dealer cannot kill a winning hand?
I have heard that TDA rules are listed in Priority Order, such that if a lower number rule AND a higher number rule apply, the lower number rule takes precedence. However that is NOT THE CASE. TDA Rules are not listed in any order of priority, at least in the 2009 version where they were reorganized by topic. Perhaps in prior versions there was some attempt at prioritization, but no longer. I have also read in this forum, posts which, if I remember correctly, indicate that winning players must be paid regardless of whether they are in attendance or not. As I said previously, this may be required by house rule or by the local gaming authority.
Just some thoughts to keep in mind.
Nick C:
Chet:
You are correct when you talk of conflicting rules. Why must the cards be tabled? Not only does it conflict with existing rules. It also goes against proper dealer procedure. Telling the dealer that it is their responsibility to turn over the absent player's hand is unacceptable. Wouldn't it be easier, and less complicated, to insist that the all-in remain at their seat until the hand is complete? Perhaps it would be easier to add: EXCEPT FOR THE ALL-IN PLAYER to the end of TDA rule #23.
chet:
Nick:
It seems to me that your real problem is with TDA Rule 9 which requires that the hands of players in an all-in situation be tabled. There is NOTHING in Rule 9 that says the dealer has to table that hand. However, if your card room is going to adhere to the TDA rules AND if the player refuses to table the hand, what is the dealer to do? Maybe this is a bar type situation where the tables are player dealt and there isn't a formal floor. What do you do then. The purpose of TDA Rule 9 is to prevent chip dumping/collusion between two players. If you don't require the hands to be tabled, how do you prevent those types of situations?
As to requiring the all-in player to remain at his seat, how do you propose to enforce that any better than requiring the hand to be tabled?
I see absolutely no need to make an exception to rule 23 for the all-in player.
As far as I am concerned, if a player goes all-in and leaves the table that hand is abandoned and I would consider it folded. If it is the winning hand, then I would award the pot to the opposing player.
Nick C:
Chet:
Killing the hand is what I want to do, too. I see it no different than dealing to an absent player and then killing their hand immediately. I've always had a problem with TDA rule #9 but, I don't want to go there right now. Why do we accept, and allow any player to toss their hand into the muck at the showdown, without revealing it, when they have a looser? Why is there an exception for the all-in? Players voluntarily fold their hands regularly, when they see a hand that has them beat. Some even make mistakes and toss the winner....so why should the all-in have the added luxury of exposing their hand and having the dealer, or another player, tell them that they have a winner?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version