I'll go through it again and see if I misunderstood the dynamics of the hand. This is the set up that Wolfster proposed:
final showdown of cards after the river. NL holdem, 5 players lets say are in a hand on the river and one of the players bet, 2 players fold and 2 players call. It is now time to show the hands... the player who bet shows one card an ace which causes the 2 players who called to muck their hands and not show.
We have three players left on the river that are eligible for the showdown. The last aggressor and two callers. Am I right so far?
No one is all in so rule 11 does NOT apply. So rule 12 applies: Showdown order. This means that our last aggressor must be the first to show his hand. There is no rule that says he has to turn over both cards at the same time, just one that says if the pot is CONTESTED he has to show both to win the pot. So again, the player turns over his first card, the Ace, and suddenly the other two players MUCK their hands (realizing they are beaten).
While it is true that the pot was being contested by the two players because they called, they have subsequently given up the contest by mucking when they see the Ace. The betting player is NOW THE LAST MAN STANDING WITH A LIVE HAND. It does not matter any longer that he showed one or both, because according to rule #14 "when all opponents cards have been mucked without being revealed, the last live hand wins." That's our boy, the other two have mucked. they don't have a hand that can contest the pot at this point. our boy wins. And there is no rule (not even 13 because there is no one left contesting the pot) that says the last live hand has to show to win the hand. (except in some houses but we are talking TDA here).
JasperToo you have definitively misunderstood the dynamic of the example by W0lfster.
This is a contested showdown, since action is completed by the two callers: it's time to see who has the best hand (RULE 10: Delcarations)
In this case we have to force RULE 13: Uncontested showdown so the players in order to win the pot must show both cards.
Linker, double check your post here. Rule 10 doesn't apply unless you are just saying that it is showtime. But that rule just means you can't simply SAY what your hand is if you expect to win the pot. The cards, eventually, have to do the talking.
And, Rule 13 is not the "Uncontested pot" rule it is the "Contested pot" rule which. I think you just titled it wrong in your post but you tell. me. Also, if you would, tell me where my reasoning is gone wrong. If our boy is the last one with a live hand, does rule 14 not apply now?
Jasper Too,
We don't agree on too many rulings, do we? If I were dealing I would insist that the player show his complete hand. One card is not enough to win. I agree with Linker_Split. If the other players mucked their hands after seeing one card from a player, as a dealer, I would insist that the other card be shown.
Jasper, would you allow the same player to win if he showed the ace and mucked the other card? No, I don't think you would...same situation.
Insisting on the player showing his complete hand while the other two are still holding their cards is fine. Especially if the other players are waiting on him to show before they show theirs. but once they muck you just have to go "oh, well, never mind, they gave up". Last live hand wins and the players that mucked give up the right to see the players hand - rule 14.
If the other player showed the ace but mucked the other card he no longer has a live hand and therefore cannot win the hand BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION AT ALL!!
So Jasper, if the player showed the ace with the other 2 players that havent mucked then what if the players ask to see the other card but the player with the ace refuses to? Does he relinquish all claim to the pot and it is won by either of the two callers? Or wll the player with the ace win the pot but concede a penalty?
I still get confused with the current rules in whether a hand is live or dead depending on who asks to see a hand during showdown.
This is why the showdown order rule is there so that everyone knows he has to show his complete hand or muck (he is perfectly within his rights to muck the hand if the other two call and he knows he is beat). He does relinquish all claim to the pot if he refuses to show both cards, eventually he will show or muck. You should not give him the pot IF THE OTHER TWO STILL have their hands and he refuses to show. either show or muck. still no penalties except holding up the game maybe if he is a repeat offender.
But that is an entirely different situation, while the other two have live hands he has to show. But your original story has them tossing in their cards as soon as he flips the Ace. So now he is the last live hand and the winner. Under TDA rule 14 he does not have to show.
Did I really misunderstand the dynamics of the hand?