So, there seems to be agreement that had the SB "successfully" mucked his hand then the BB would have been the rightful winner.
The player sitting in the BB spot only had 400 of the actual 800 BB amount and was therefore all-in for his 400. Each of the players to the left of the BB would need to put in 800 to call. Well, that is of course, except for the SB who already has 400 in the pot. It's pretty easy to see how a novice in the SB might think they would need to put another 400 in to make the call. Perhaps, the dealer had even said something like "The BB is all-in for 400 and it is still 800 to call." before the remaining players began folding all the way to the SB. Then, the novice in the SB followed suit and folded like the rest of the players.
In my opinion, there are at least four written TDA rules that are relevant in this situation:
- #1 Floor Decisions
- #2 Player Responsibilities
- #15 Face Up for All-Ins
- #53 Non-Standard Folds
Several of the above TDA members believe that rule #15 should be used to reach the final verdict in this case. I however, respectfully disagree. In regards with rule #2, the SB:
- made his intention clear - he was folding
- acted in turn
- perhaps didn't follow the action
- perhaps didn't know and comply with the rules
I also see how rule #15 could be relevant in this situation. Technically speaking, even without knowing it, the SB has put enough chips into the pot to call the BB. Nowhere is there a rule that says the SB must put in the 800 and then be refunded the 400. (NOTE: All of the other players would need to put in 800 to call and then would have been refunded 400 if they were the only caller.) But, I also read in rule #15 that it applies
once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete. I think that this detail is being overlooked.
IMO: When the player on the button folded, the action proceeds to the SB, who in this case folded. A Floor Decision that uses rule #15 to reverse the SB's intended action by stopping action at the button, to comply with the rest of rule #15, is going to far.
TDA rules should not be used to prevent players from acting when it is their turn to act. Players must be allowed to act. (Remember now, everyone agreed that had the SB "successfully mucked" that the BB would be the winner.)
Also, let's not forget about rule #53. This rule says that
folding in turn if there's no bet to you ... (is a binding fold) and subject to penalty. The fit and merit of rule #15 and #53 should be considered. IMO: #53 fits best and results in the better ruling.
Finally, rule #1 tells us that the
technical rules should not be given priority over
the best interest of the game and fairness when making decisions.
My ruling is based on consideration of all four of the above rules. Having given you the long of it above, here is the short of it.
The SB acted in turn and folded. The SB should receive a warning penalty for the non-standard fold as he wasn't facing a bet. The BB would win the pot as he had the last live hand. I know that some believe that the "best cards" should always win. I believe that the "best player" should be allowed to win his fair share. The BB did nothing wrong here and the SB made a big mistake. Of course, the other players at the table wanted to get rid of the BB so they wouldn't necessarily agree with the ruling - but good players would know that is was the fairest decision

.