Then there's the other issue of maintaining the integrity of the game by ensuring against collusion, given that folding in the face of no bet from one view has the strongest appearance of soft play. Requiring the two hands to be shown here might be justified for that reason alone, quite apart from strictly the issue of folding to a check. Perhaps the TD saw the ruling not as penalty (i.e. he allowed the soft fold w/o a penalty), but required the mutual show for game integrity.
Yes, that is what I have been saying. It makes total sense from a game integrity standpoint. But the ruling essentially penalizes the second player by forcing him to show his hand when he has done nothing wrong... The second player should be permitted to act in turn, and presumably be given the opportunity to bet if checked to (and thus take down the pot without showing if Antonio folds to the bet).
Mike, I don't believe every subject is governed by a specific rule. The subject we speak of is poker etiquette. It is highly unethical to fold when you have an option to check. I like what you just wrote;..." wouldn't the TD have to say "sorry, you cannot fold here, it is prohibited" ?? ... and the problem is that isn't the rule.
That's correct it isn't a rule. However, mucking in that situation must never be an option...never.
Agreed... perhaps the problem is that it isn't explicitly stated in the rules
but it should be. Don't dealers often tell the first player to act in a betting round to "check or bet"? They don't say, "well, you could check or bet, but you could also fold technically although it's considered poor etiquette and non-standard since the presumption is you are engaging in soft play when you fold when you could actually check and so you may be subject to a penalty, but essentially, your options are check or bet".
In my experience, the only people who insist on being allowed to fold when check is an option are players who selfishly want to get out of the hand, are not willing to wait their turn in what is a turn-based game, and who don't care about maintaining game integrity or concern themselves about how their fold might influence future action. I am not persuaded that there is any valid reason why someone should be permitted to fold when check is an option. We could codify this explicitly, but really, I am surprised that anyone thought "the rule" was otherwise. For me, it is a matter of common sense. If fold were meant to be an option along with check, then
that should be an exception to be set out explicitly in the rules. I am 100% in agreement with Nick that mucking when a check is possible should never be an option, and I don't think it ever was.
Question for those of you in the "fold to a check is prohibited" camp:
1) is an out-of-turn fold also generally prohibited or is it binding or is it subject to the same binding/not binding conditions as any other OOT action (such as an OOT bet, raise, check)? Does it make a difference whether the OOT fold occurs when the current action is a check or a bet?
Before the new TDA rule came into effect, I would have ruled an out-of-turn fold the same as any other OOT action -- all options remain open if action hasn't changed. Now the rule says that it is binding, so I have to rule the fold as binding unconditionally. To me though, the fold being "binding" does not mean I must kill the hand immediately, or that fold is an "option" when the player could check.
If a player (who could check) folds, I think the correct approach should be to have him take his cards back, force him to check (he cannot take aggressive action by betting now), let action around the table continue, and should the action come back to him
and he faces a bet, then he must fold at that point. That is what "binding" means to me. His immediately penalty is that his opponents can bet knowing that he will fold (but if no one bets, IMO his hand is still iive!). After the hand is done, the TD can assess hand and round penalties as well.
To me, "binding" means that
when the action returns to a player, and fold becomes a valid option on the player's actual turn, then the fold is enforced. The term "binding", in and of itself, has no temporal restrictions. If the intention was that "binding" = "kill the hand
immediately" in non-standard fold situations, then I think that should have been made explicit in the new rule.
Personally, I would prefer if the rule said: (1) A player who folds out-of-turn is bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player
and the player faces a bet. (2) A fold that has been made in turn when the player had the option to check will be deemed a check, but the player will be bound to fold when, at any point during the hand, action returns to that player
and the player faces a bet. In both cases, the player may not make any aggressive action (e.g. bet) while his hand remains live.
Similarly, I would also prefer that there be an explicit rule that says if a player
checks or "calls" out-of-turn in a given betting round, the player is bound by that action if action to that player has not changed (as per Rule 36), but additionally, the player has give up any right to make any aggressive action (e.g. bet, raise) in that betting round.
2) When the BB folds on his option when there's been no raise, do you push the cards back to him and tell him he can't fold, it's prohibited?
With respect to the BB folding his option when there's been no raise, we discussed this in a separate thread. Many believe that to avoid players from being upset by someone who intended to fold ultimately winning the pot, the BB's hand should immediately be killed. I disagreed because I felt that this penalty was disproportionate and extreme for something that is most likely unintentional. It is much different from being first to act on a betting round and folding out of turn; a BB inadvertently folding his option is closing the action for that betting round and giving him back his hand when no one has raised does not affect any player's outstanding decisions for that round. Personally, I would prefer a compromise position that would not kill the BB's hand (e.g. give the BB back his cards, and allow his hand to be live but he cannot take any aggressive action for the remainder of the hand), but I don't think this would get majority support.