PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: Ricky9 on July 22, 2016, 10:31:27 PM
-
Hi Guys, could you please give me your input on Rule 17 as I don't think this is clear even in the addendum.
On the river
A bets
B Calls
A shows nuts
B Folds face down and dealer is dragging them in to the muck.
A Stops dealer
A wants to see B's cards
What is the ruling please?
Nick C I know you advocate everyone to show, but according to the present rules.
-
Hi Ricky,
I agree that Rule 17 and the addendum are not clear, even in this situation, perhaps the most common request to see the opponents hand. That said, the rule can be applied here as follows:
Player A tabled his hand and is therefore not subject to the exclusion that is in Rule 17 part A. He did not "lose any rights or privileges to ask to see any hand."
Now applying Rule 17 part B: There was a river bet. However, Player A was the last aggressor and not a caller who would have an inalienable right to see the hand of the aggressor. So, that leaves you with the last sentence of Part B. Player A's request is indeed valid, but is subject to TD's discretion.
That's the analysis of the current rule as written. As I recall, the last TDA Summit had quite a bit of discussion around this - particularly whether or not the aggressor or a reciprocating request should have "right" versus "privilege" to see a hand.
Many TD's would agree that Player A should be allowed to see the hand of Player B. However, many others believe that Player A's request should only be honored when there is suspicion of collusion on Player B's part (which implies involvement of a Player C).
As I'm sure you know, in poker, both chips and information are valuable. Player A won the chips. He had the best hand. Should he be entitled to even more information for free? It isn't like he "paid to see the hand" as in the case of a caller. Everyone who plays poker (including Player B) knows that Player A would have to show his hand first. Player B could reasonably assume, that if he were beat, he would be able to muck his cards and withhold valuable information from Player A. That is the privilege of the losing caller.
TDA Rule #16 establishes the order of show in the above case (and in others). It is long standing poker practice to allow subsequent players to muck their cards after witnessing a player table a winning hand before them. This is true for all showdowns that do not involve a player who is all-in.
While the implication may be clear, there is no wording in the TDA Rules that explicitly supports Player B's privilege or right to muck his cards. Perhaps there could be another opportunity for clarity in the 2017 Summit.
-
Ricky9,
I know you don't want to hear (again) how I feel about TDA #17 so I won't get into it...
I think Bill covered your situation when he said Player A was not subject to exclusion....I would like to explain why the confusion exists in the Addendum. There is an order of showdown that must be followed. The last aggressive bettor should never be allowed to muck, after being called.
I like the way we run to Robert's Rules for clarification on some of our rules, yet when Bob Ciaffone does not agree with our rule, we're lost. The problem in the Addendum would not be allowed in most card rooms. And how we allow players to "just muck" in tournament poker boggles my mind!
-
Hi Guys, could you please give me your input on Rule 17 as I don't think this is clear even in the addendum.
On the river
A bets
B Calls
A shows nuts
B Folds face down and dealer is dragging them in to the muck.
A Stops dealer
A wants to see B's cards
What is the ruling please?
The TDA rules on ATSAH are quite well-established by now, not sure what isn't clear.
In the above case, A is the last aggressor on the river and B is the caller. The caller always has the right to see the hand he called, as long as he retains his cards or has tabled them.
However, in this case the last aggressor is asking to see the hand that called him. The TDA rules give no such guarantee to the last aggressor. As Rule 17-B states: "TDs discretion governs all other requests such as to see the hand of another caller, or if there was no river bet." As of the 2015 Summit, some houses will frequently honor such requests, others will honor it only for good cause, others won't entertain it at all. There was just too much diversity for such cases to come up with a blanket rule in either 2013 or 2015 so it was left to TDs discretion.
-
I think the problem originates from the lack of a rule for "order of showdown." As Mike stated, "The caller always has the right to see the hand he called, as long as he retains his cards or has tabled them."
If the last aggressor shows first, that problem is solved. Anyone that has played poker, even in moderation, has experienced the situation when a player bets, you call and then the bettor asks; "What do you have?" :o I promise you, if that ever happens to me, I will never show my hand first!
So if we follow the proper order of showdown, the simple rule should be something closer to Robert's Rules. As far as the situation when there is no river bet...there is still a proper order of show. My simple explanation is the first player that "checked" the final betting round.
-
The TDA rules on ATSAH are quite well-established by now, not sure what isn't clear.
I'm having a brain fart. What's "ATSAH" ?
...you call and then the bettor asks; "What do you have?" :o I promise you, if that ever happens to me, I will never show my hand first!
My response is always, "The winning hand. You gonna show or fold?"
-
Dave,
I'm not a big fan of abbreviations, but asking to see a hand is my guess.
A quick suggestion for dealers to help the proper "flow" of the showdown: Address the aggressor (or first to show) and stay with him until he shows. Aggressor is Adam, Bill and Carl both call. Dealer: "Okay Adam, let's see them." The exception would be if Bill or Carl had an (exclusive) nut hand, or they were quite certain they had the best hand. Exposing the hand would be advised so time is not wasted.
I probably wouldn't care that much about, "who shows first" if we didn't mention "suspected collusion" as a valid reason to request to see a called hand?!? :o Adam shows his hand, Bill attempts to fold and Carl say's (to Adam) "you win, but I want to see Bill's hand because I think he was cheating!" ::) Are you kidding me????
-
I think the problem originates from the lack of a rule for "order of showdown."
You might want to check out TDA Rule 16.
So if we follow the proper order of showdown, the simple rule should be something closer to Robert's Rules. As far as the situation when there is no river bet...there is still a proper order of show. My simple explanation is the first player that "checked" the final betting round.
Again, that's Rule 16, one of the first rules ever adopted by the TDA.
-
Mike,
How can you say that this is covered in TDA #16? The first line reads: "....if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded...."That should not be allowed if you specify a proper order of show. The very next line, contradicts the first! "The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first!" That's it! That's all we need. Furthermore, if there were no bet on the final betting round, either the players were all-in or the final round was checked. If it was checked, the first player that checked MUST show first. Forget all that first player closest to the button in flop games and high hand in stud or low hand in razz etc.etc. It's not necessary, is it?
The "uncontested stuff" only confuses me. I'm with Dave... on the less is best!
-
Mike and Nick,
It's interesting to read your above comments and then read the original version of rule 16, then called rule 37:
2007 version of the rule:
37 Showdown- At the end of last round of betting the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise. In stud games the player with the high board must show first. In razz the lowest board shows first.
-
So which is better? If you agree with me, why was it changed?
-
How can you say that this is covered in TDA #16? The first line reads: "....if cards are not spontaneously tabled or discarded...."That should not be allowed if you specify a proper order of show.
The reason why we don't require a person-by-person card showing at each showdown is the time it would require. Imagine if we had to enforce an order of show for every showdown. The showdown order rule is there IF cards are not spontaneously tabled.
The very next line, contradicts the first! "The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first!" That's it!
No they don't contradict one another, the next line is there in case spontaneous tabling doesn't occur. Reality is this: 3 players. A bets, B and C call, C shows a hand A and B know they can't beat and A and B discard... that's showdown reality. Who wants to say "Okay A, you were the last aggressor, so you show first" everytime? Imagine the extra time that would require.
If it was checked, the first player that checked MUST show first. Forget all that first player closest to the button in flop games and high hand in stud or low hand in razz etc.etc. It's not necessary, is it?
They are the same thing, and the current language has been re-affirmed over many Summits. Because here's the problem... people will read "the player who checked first", and the immediate question is "who is that"? The answer is in Rule 16 as written: (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand in razz, etc.).
Sorry you're confused about Rule 16-B, the definition of uncontested showdown is about as clear as it can be: "all but one player mucks face down without tabling".... This rule is there to clarify the global agreement reached in 2015, that if the showdown is uncontested the last live hand wins and does not have to be shown. This was a huge agreement because prior to it some houses required the winning hand to always be shown, regardless of whether the showdown was contested.
-
Mike and Nick,
It's interesting to read your above comments and then read the original version of rule 16, then called rule 37:
2007 version of the rule:
37 Showdown- At the end of last round of betting the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise. In stud games the player with the high board must show first. In razz the lowest board shows first.
Right, and those rules haven't changed. In 2013 the language was added to clarify: 1) This applies only to non-all-in showdowns, and 2) will be enforced when cards aren't spontaneously tabled, which is normally what happens in most showdowns.
Then Rule 16-B was added in 2015 to clarify that if all but one hand is mucked face down without tabling, the last live hand wins and need not be shown. Rule 16-B was finally adopted in 2015 after efforts to reach consensus on it at prior Summits had failed. Rule 16-B replaced the old (and divisive) language: "Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down".
-
Nick is right.
[begin rant]
The current set of TDA rules might be the most convoluted, contradictory, over worded set of rules ever put on paper.
[/end]
As to the topic at hand - Any player with cards, at showdown, has the right (not privilege) to ask see another players cards. Simple.
-
Hi guys,
For me this rule is clear.
There's a bet or a raise and a call on the river.
The caller always pay to see the hand not the opposite.
Why the agressor would have a right to see ? Don't change this rule please because if you do we will lost all the high card calls on river I think and it's maybe one of the best things in poker ! ^^
The only problem here I meet quite often is :
- A do not respect the showdown and open first.
- B fold and dealer takes B's cards and he's close to totally muck it. B's cards can be identify.
- A stop the dealer and ask to see the hand immediatly.
In this case, I always say to A :
- " Sir if you don't respect the showdown rule, you can't ask for it "
-
If the player is in possession of their cards, they have the right to see the other player's hand. The only reason we allow mucking is that it speeds up the game, but in a perfect world those cards would both have already been shown. It doesn't matter who bet, who called, it holds true both ways.
It's also poor etiquette to ask to see a hand in every scenario as well, but that's another matter.
-
It's also poor etiquette to ask to see a hand in every scenario as well, but that's another matter.
YES!
-
Hello!
Come on: This case was so clear in the rules that I don't see the point to spend time again on it? I mean there are so many other hard situations! Please if you joined the TDA like me to be an UNIONIST (Ruling with the majority even if you don't like all the rules - Not ruling your own favorite ones!), let's move on!
A caller on last round can't be obliged to show a hand! OK shuffle-up and deal the next one please!
GG