Bill.... example situations:
1) let's look at the case described in prior text... 4 hearts on board, At showdown I pitch my cards forward a foot or so, clearly within my grasp, then realize there's a heart in the hand... too late to table it?
2) What if I toss it forward, the heart card flips up, I can't table the other card?
3) What if I discard face down and the presumed winner asks to see it... by a large majority most houses will rule the "discarded" hand live in that case... it's live in that case but not others?
The problem is there are too many "possibilities" if we use mere discarding as the point at which a hand is killed at showdown... vs. dealer pushing them in the muck, a much more definitive action. These are some of the reasons that "live til in the muck" (i.e. "live til not 100% identifiable") was adopted at the 2013 Summit. If you combine that with Cards Speak, then it's very clean: verbal declarations are meaningless, and the cards are live until they are in the muck. This of course unless the house uses a forward motion / mucking line at showdown as provided in the 2013 Rule 14-B.
As an aside, some have suggested using "dealer takes possession" of the hand as the point of killing, rather than actually placing the cards in the muck...
Thoughts?
Hey Mike, I think there are a few things found in RRoP v.11 that I'd like to include while answering your examples:
ROBERT’S RULES OF POKER
VERSION 11
DEAD HANDS
1. Your hand is declared dead if:
(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).
2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.
THE SHOWDOWN
2. Cards speak (cards read for themselves). The dealer assists in reading hands, but players are responsible for holding onto their cards until the winner is declared. Although verbal declarations as to the contents of a hand are not binding, deliberately miscalling a hand with the intent of causing another player to discard a winning hand is unethical and may result in forfeiture of the pot.
4. All losing hands will be killed by the dealer before a pot is awarded.
5. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.
Now to the crux of the problem. Clearly, before the pot is awarded the hands must be read at showdown. Certainly, the hands that have been tabled correctly should be read. Likewise, those that have been thrown away in a forward motion should be killed. If I'm not mistaken, the dilemma that we are dissecting is whether or not a player should be able to reverse his decision to muck and instead decide to table his hand before the dealer actually kills it. Here is my answer.
First, we assume that the cards are 100% identifiable and that the player can regain control of those cards without armwrestling with the dealer.
Now, we have two possible scenarios. Players are either:
1) spontaneously tabling their hands in no particular order or
2) the tabling order is proceeding based on TDA rules
Lets now assume that the dealer is a graduate of Nick's
University of Professional Poker Dealers
. So, hands that are discarded are being killed ASAP.
IMO: A player who changes his mind during the spontaneously tabling scenario is one lucky guy and should be able to table his hand. Furthermore, I doubt that any of the other players would object in this case. Also, if the tabling is proceeding under rule, then Nick's disciple would likely kill the players hand unless he had changed his mind before it was his turn to show.
However, most dealers are not UPPD graduates. Unless players are tabling spontaneously, what usually happens is that a dealer will merely identify the correct player who should show first and then players follow the correct order from there. In this case, if showdown action proceeds past a discarded player then that player
should not be allowed to change his mind and table his cards.
In answer to your examples:
Example 1: Lets use Phil Ivey's 2009 WSOP muck instead of your example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKBKoSyTEAEPhil's hand is in the muck but was placed there by himself and not the dealer. The cards are 100% identifiable. If he suddenly remembered that he had the 8 of spades and the winning flush, should he be allowed to change his mind? What if he were sitting in seat #2 and discarded with his arm extended toward the muck but didn't actually hit the mucked cards. Then suddenly, before the dealer could muck his hand should he be allowed to change his mind? He is last to act in both of these cases. Following RRoP Dead Hands #2: The question in the first case here is would I as TD decide the best interest of the game would allow Phil to table his winning hand. In this case, I would have to allow his hand to play. Following that same logic, the second scenario is also a yes. But, what if there were a third player in the hand that was to act after Phil? Lets say the third player shows the 7 of spades for an apparent winner. Then, suddenly Phil says "wait I had the 8 of spades." Then, following RRoP Dead Hands #1, I would
not allow Phil's hand to play.
Example 2: Players often toss their cards forward to help the dealer read or muck the hand. Who is to say that the faceup or facedown card was the accidental card? The hand is live and both cards should be tabled.
Example 3: I agree with the majority and with RRoP - If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.
