PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: deagian on April 24, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
-
hi guys,
rules tda muck cards
at the river
player A bet player b call
player A muck is cards player b ask to see the cards
player b have the privilege to see the cards?
thanks
-
18: Asking to See a Hand
Players not still in possession of their cards at showdown, or who have mucked face down without tabling their cards, lose any rights or privileges they may have to ask to see any hand.
Hi Deagian,
TDA does not specify whether or not B has the right or privilege to see that hand. That issue relies more on house rules. The majority of the TDA does agree that if B does not have cards, they lose any rights or privileges to see the hand.
-
deagian,
Like so many rules, they differ from one card room to another. If any of the player's are all-in, then the cards must be tabled, according to the TDA. Beyond that, I would rule that any player has the right (or privilege, if you prefer) to see a called hand at the river. There are risks if the player that is unopposed (probable winner), asks to see the surrendered (unexposed) hand...the hand would be live, and the best hand wins. I know that Robert's Rules covers this subject and we often turn to RRoP in situations like this.
We should probably consider covering this situation in TDA # 18.
-
player A bet player B call his bet than player A muck his hand (cards not in to the muck pile)
player B that call the bet asked to see the cards
player B have the right to see the cards because he paid for it or not? by tda rules?
player b still have is card on his hand
thanks
-
deagian,
In my card game...Player B gets to see Player A's hand!
However, as Tristan mentioned, there is no specific TDA rule that governs your exact scenario. That could be a good suggestion for the next Summit.
-
player A bet player B call his bet than player A muck his hand (cards not in to the muck pile)
player B that call the bet asked to see the cards
player B have the right to see the cards because he paid for it or not? by tda rules?
player b still have is card on his hand
thanks
The Association actually did agree on the above scenario at the 2013 Summit, i.e. any player calling the last aggressive action on the final street can ask to see the hand he called and it must be shown 100% of the time.
This is subject to the requesting player either retaining his own cards or tabling them before mucking. A player who mucks face down without tabling his cards loses this right.
The reason it was not written into the rules is that the way the draft read it could leave the impression this is the only situation in which a player either may ask to see the cards or has a guaranteed "right" to see them.
Then there's the related issue of whether the hand shown by request is live or not. In the above scenario I'd say it's near-100% agreement that the hand would be live because there's only 2 competitiors at showdown, and the "presumptive winner" is asking to see the non-tabled hand.
But what if there's a 3rd Player "C" at showdown, and C also called A's bet on the final street. So A attempts to muck which B and C show their hands and B has the better hand. C, who is not the presumptive winner then asks to see the hand he called (A's hand), and the hand is tabled. Is it live or dead in this situation? There is not a consensus on this. Some favor that "all cards tabled at showdown by whatever means are live" while others favor "if the presumed winner asks to see the cards they are live, otherwise they are dead".
Very interesting topic.
-
Mike,
I understand what you are saying, with multiple players. However, the procedure would be to kill the mucked hand by touching it to the muck, and award the pot to the winner before exposing the mucked hand. Tournament poker needs to offer more protection to all players...by protection, I am referring to a guarantee that the best hand, in for all bets, gets the pot. It's the only fair way, at least that's how I see it. In a cash game, I don't believe players deserve to win when they muck their cards. They need to protect their own hands.
-
Nick: The procedure you describe: "tapping the discarded hand to the muck then exposing it as a dead hand" is a procedure of the camp that believes cards tabled by request at showdown are dead or alive depending on two major things: 1) Who asked to see it (the presumptive winner OR one of the losers); and 2) whether the hand was in the possession of the player at the time an opponent asked him to table it. The rules of this camp are that: A) if A's cards are still in A's possession when C (a loser) asks to see them, they are live; otherwise if A discarded them before C's request, they are dead (so you use the muck-tap procedure you outline) AND B) If Player B (the presumptive winner) asks to see them they are always live.
That's one camp on this topic.
The other camp does away with all of this and just says "all cards tabled at showdown by whatever means are live".
There are major tours in each of the above camps and the Association was not able to reach agreement on one approach over the other in order to adopt a rule on it. So for now, it's a house policy.
-
Mike,
I understand how the different camps feel about our scenario. I was just telling deagian how I like to handle the situation. Personally, in tournament poker, I'd like to insist that all called hands be tabled at showdown...as if there were an all-in. Why should any player have to worry about the possibility that a winning hand was mucked?
Is it really in the best interest of a tournament to award the pot to an undeserving player? Cash game is a completely different story. If a player wants to give his chips away, fine. I don't like the idea that, in tournament poker, the best hand was ditched, (intentionally or otherwise). Table the damn cards!
I'm submitting a new camp: Table all called hands at showdown...end of story...and end of arguments!
-
Nick: Thanks for catching that... yes there is even a 3rd camp on this.
-
Yep, I think Effel was in that camp. I have to admit, it would make things easier!
-
Despite the rule not being worded more positively, I'm pretty sure that at the summit, it was agreed that B is entitled to see A's hand, because B still has his cards. I also vaguely recall that if for some reason A's hand was purposely mucked such that it couldn't be revealed after B had asked for it to be turned over, a penalty would be assessed.
p.s. I'm in the camp that would say all tabled hands are live. I've never been a big fan of this "fake" touch-a-hand-to-the-muck-to-kill-it ritual, for tournament play.
-
Ken,
Welcome back!
We all agree that tabled hands should be live. The question is: Do you believe all called hands should be tabled for tournament poker?
In defense of the "touch" the cards to the muck method. The idea is to let players know that their hands may be exposed, just in case they might try to dump some chips, or something to that effect.
The prefered method is to award the pot before exposing the mucked hand...when requested.
Bottom line: I just don't like the idea that a player (or players) could "squeeze" you out of a pot, call all bets, and dump their hand when their "partner" has you beat! If I paid to see a hand, I expect just that. :)
-
Thanks, Nick!
Just got back from vacation!
I'm not sure how I feel about tabling all called hands... I know you've been pushing for that, and as I reported to you at the Summit, Jack would appear to take your side! I see the merits to it, but I think it is unlikely to get widespread support simply because I think they would think (1) it would delay the game (2) there is something to say about allowing players to keep more information hidden. However, it certainly is a trade-off, as you note, since it would alleviate some of the potential collusion issues, and we'd better ensure that the winning hand does actually win the pot.
Maybe one day.... Don't give up! :)
-
Point of Order: Doesn't Rule 16 (Showdown Order) factor here?
A liberal reading of the OP indicates Player B tabled first, tripping over this rule. The rule itself has wiggle room ("...the TD may enforce an order...") but otherwise compels the player with the last bet or raise to table first, and can go back to the turn or even the flop to find the first bettor. (Bar poker!) Would all of you agree to show the hand, but warn Player B to allow the dealer to request the correct first hand per this rule to table first?
I also join Nick in the "Table all of them!" camp.
A literal interpretation of OP's situation intimates A mucked before B tabled. (Note the OP did NOT outright state B tabled cards.) B says he wants to see A's cards, but hasn't shown his own hand yet. I have had this exact situation happen when someone gets caught bluffing. The player is sure he will get an all-fold, but gets called and would rather muck than table.
'Brian
-
Point of Order: Doesn't Rule 16 (Showdown Order) factor here?
A liberal reading of the OP indicates Player B tabled first, tripping over this rule. The rule itself has wiggle room ("...the TD may enforce an order...") but otherwise compels the player with the last bet or raise to table first, and can go back to the turn or even the flop to find the first bettor. (Bar poker!) Would all of you agree to show the hand, but warn Player B to allow the dealer to request the correct first hand per this rule to table first?
I also join Nick in the "Table all of them!" camp.
A literal interpretation of OP's situation intimates A mucked before B tabled. (Note the OP did NOT outright state B tabled cards.) B says he wants to see A's cards, but hasn't shown his own hand yet. I have had this exact situation happen when someone gets caught bluffing. The player is sure he will get an all-fold, but gets called and would rather muck than table.
'Brian
Ideally the hands are simultaneously tabled. Rule 16 only comes into play when players are reluctant to show. The situation in the OP is clarified in a later post: it was A who bet and B who called. So if an order must be enforced, A should show first. As you noted, A may want to muck because he was called and caught bluffing. The new rule allows the caller to request that the player wanting to muck must show. A may well prefer to muck rather than show his bluff, and under the old rules he was permitted to do so, but now the caller can ask to see that hand.
With respect to Rule 16 having "wiggle room", it was suggested that Rule 16 could be interpreted that one "can go back to the turn or even the flop to find the first bettor". This is not correct under TDA rules, and in fact, under most rule sets except perhaps certain European tourneys and where certain venues have implemented different house rules (I vaguely recall Australia may fall in this category but I can't remember now). The "go back to previous streets to see who was the last aggressor" approach is not in favor now. I think Rule 16 is a bit wordy, but is quite clear on this point.
K
-
Hello Brian,
It's always good to know there is support for tabling all called hands at the showdown. Back in the old days...30 years ago...some cardrooms in Vegas did go back to the earlier betting rounds when the late rounds were checked. I believe it created too many problems, and delay's, so the last round is the most practical to consider. As far as "order of showdown" there are times when it is completely normal for a player to turn their cards out of sequence. The best example would be a player holding an exclusive nut hand. Why delay the outcome?
I agree with Ken about the "last aggressor." I always thought that a slight change in wording could further clarify this rule. For some reason, many misunderstood the last bettor or last to raise. I've always explained it to my students like this: The player who initiated the final bet or raise on the last round. All I can say is, everyone understood.
I also instruct my dealers to address the proper player to show at the showdown.