Author Topic: Cards Speak at Showdown  (Read 5166 times)

BIG AL

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Cards Speak at Showdown
« on: August 11, 2014, 07:32:37 AM »
Two players are in the hand. Player A and player B. Showdown action, Player A announces that it has straight. Player B says it is good and throws his cards. A show card and says my fault and I do not have a straight, not a nice look at my card. Card of player B in the muck card. Action is stop and called the floor. Player B calls for a rule that Card speak. Player A has no history as a player do something like that. The decision to pot belongs to  player A as he was last valid hand. Player B had to wait for  player A shows his hand. You agree with this decision?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2014, 10:33:26 AM »
Big Al,

 If you have a dealer that controls the game, that would never happen. However, that would be the case in many situations that are discussed on the Forum. Player B, by not waiting to see Player A's hand, is in jeopardy of losing the pot. You mentioned that there is no history on Player A intentionally overstating his hand. There are several scenarios, not mentioned, that might affect my ruling: The action could be a very insignificant amount that might be easy to settle by a simple split.
         The pot could also be a considerable amount that could alter the outcome of your tournament.
         What if the nut hand were on the board? Would you still want to kill Player B's hand? Would that be in the best interest of the game?
         You did not specify the game, either. What if the game were stud and Player B had a better hand on board?
Sometimes an ounce of prevention is the only solution. How does a player get his cards past (even a mediocre dealer), and bury them in the muck?

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2014, 03:35:43 AM »
The default, standard ruling here is that players must protect their own hands - this means ensuring that they do not muck their own hand if they are not certain the hand is beat.  The rules do provide that the miscaller MAY lose the pot if he intentionally misdeclares his hand; however, I suspect that most TDs would lean toward a warning, or a penalty if there is history, still awarding the pot to A.

Personally, I cannot think of a situation where I would award B the pot here unless A has a lot of history of playing this angle and the intention to miscall was blatant. The reason is that B has a relatively easy way to protect himself here -  just table the hand!

Note that if B's cards are clearly identifiable and retrievable and not mixed in with the muck yet at all, I would allow them to be tabled and play.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2014, 05:52:51 AM »
Ken,

 Yes, players must protect their own hands, but tournament poker should also protect all players by assuring the correct player gets the pot. We've discussed this before on numerous threads, turn over all called hands at showdown. We've also debated who should turn over the discarded hand? I believe our rules (TDA) should erase any doubt, as to what the proper procedure should be at showdown.
                         No player, in for all bets, is allowed to muck their hand without showing.
                         In the event a player mistakenly mucks, thinking they are in the hand unopposed, they will be instructed to turn over their discarded hand.

 It's true, the player without cards should not be awarded the pot. However, in the original question, I would rather confiscate the pot than award it to a player who miscalled his hand, and very probably had the losing hand.

 Players must protect their own hand...and the TDA must protect all tournament players.

Nicolas Bouis

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2014, 11:25:12 AM »
                         No player, in for all bets, is allowed to muck their hand without showing.
This rule should not be the same in any case (check/check) because same case could happen ?

I would rather confiscate the pot than award it to a player who miscalled his hand, and very probably had the losing hand.
Can you explain me ? You take chips in the pot out of tournament ? (sorry if my question is stupid, I want to be sure I understand).

Players must protect their own hand...and the TDA must protect all tournament players.
This sould be the only TD's work.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3310
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2014, 12:51:53 PM »
Nicolas,

 First of all, I want you to understand that my answer is my honest opinion of how I would handle the situation. This does not mean that everyone agrees with me.

 I'm not sure I'm understanding your first question. My answer is based on a checked round being the same as a round that was bet and called by all players. In other words; all players executed their option to bet or check.

 Your next question about removing chips, rather than award them to the losing player, (in my opinion) would be in the best interest of the game. Take the chips out of circulation. Or, divide them equally among the remaining players, or leave them in the pot for the next deal, or almost anything except awarding the pot to a player who; might have misread his hand intentionally.

Thanks for your response to my answers. I hope I've explained what you wanted to know.

Nicolas Bouis

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Cards Speak at Showdown
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2014, 11:46:59 PM »

Thanks for your response to my answers. I hope I've explained what you wanted to know.

Yes Nick, many thanks :)