Mucked cards small v big blind

[suffolkraider]

Hi all I would just like to ask a question that caused a kerfuffle tonight.
NLHE tournament blinds are 400/800 big blind only has 400 Table folds to small blind who pushes cards forward near but didn't outright declare fold to muck pile but then noted by dealer that he can't fold as he has matched bet of big blind. The cards were easily identifiable so the hand is played and the small blind wins knocking the big blind out. This then caused a stir with non players adding their bit but as I pointed out the shuffle had started so that hand was over. The TD said we were right.
My question is was the dealer right to retrieve the cards as they were near the muck pile as per the TD and were we right in saying he couldn't fold.

[Max D]

1. the card are not mucked until the dealer pulls in the card into the muck.
2. cards were identifiable and retrievable so nothing wrong here.
3. if the small blind still wants to fold he can, there are no rules that says he has to play, he should since the play doesnt require him to put more in the pot.
4. if the small blind still wants to fold, there could be colusion, something for the TD to decide.

So to answer the questions, yes the dealer can retrieve the cards  since they are easy to recover and not officially mucked.  And can probably recommend to play but not force the player to play (but of course there is the issue of potential colusion and not wanting to eliminate this player which could mean some penalty but not a forced play.)

[Nick C]

Max,

 Because we are talking tournament poker, I believe that the BB could not fold because he was all-in. It's true , the cards were identifiable but that has little to do with this situation. All-in cards must be tabled.

[BillM16]

As described in the OP, it seems that the clear intent of the SB was to fold when pushing cards toward the muck.  Rule #14 says that the SB "may change his mind" here.  It doesn't say that the dealer should rescue him.  Players have a responsibility in #2 to "one player to a hand."  I also believe that dealers should not become the second player in the hand.  The BB was all-in and one might argue that #15 would require the hands to be turned face up here.  But, #15 is only relevant after "all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete."  The SB made a choice to muck while erroneously thinking that he was facing a larger bet.  Poker is a game of observation and the SB made a mistake that should not be rewarded with the assistance of the dealer and lady luck.

Regards,
B~

[suffolkraider]

Thank you for your replies I can now see where it was right and wrong as I have problems in pub poker (as this was) that "many" players "know the rules" Our main problem was a player who was already out was trying to get the player reinstated (had a few too) I think next time if it reoccurs we should stop rather than have a discussion. So really if the SB has decide to fold it is his/her mistake and we should not help unless there has been an infringement
I knew this was the place to get the answers as you guys are the best.

[Brian Vickers]

It was a tournament, one player was all-in and all bets were matched. I would instruct SB and BB to turn their hands up and run the board out.  If blinds were 300-600 and BB was all-in for 400 and SB mucked for 100 more that would be different and I would not return those cards; but in your example: all-in and matched, run it.

[Nick C]

 Rules for poker must be governed by the written rules that best pertain to each unique situation that may arise. In the situation described, the all-in rule "must" trump the others. I do not agree that the dealer should remain silent. A good dealer will know the rules and should do everything in his power to "protect" all tournament players from the unacceptable situation where chips are awarded to the wrong player.

 So...suffolkraider, in my opinion, as I stated earlier and Brian Vickers agreed, the right thing to do is exactly what you did...the BB hand could not be killed in that situation.

 

[BillM16]

If the SB had successfully mucked his cards, which rule(s) would apply?

[Nick C]

If the cards were "successfully" mucked by the SB, the winner would be the BB.

[Mateus93]

The pot must be given for the last player that have live cards, in case of no showdown (that decide the winner with better hand)...
 so 1 - SB successly fold, the last last player with live hand is the BB, so win the pot
      2- SB fold but cards didnt touch the muck, apply the rule of all in need to showdown, once both players are with the same value of bets  and BB cant raise anymore, so dealer ask to the player to showdown their cards and the better hand gona win
      3- SB fold when needed to complety a small value compared with the blinds, i think dealer cant say how the player need to play, so fold continue and BB "doble up" but in this case SB can be punished for collusion.

     But in case 3, can director ask for the dealer the showdown of SB cards (not to participate of the but,) only to verify a real possible of collusion, and if he/she folds a obvious good hand, the punish can be more severe, like an elimination?

[Nick C]

Mateus93:

 If you ask me, that's the exact situation the rule was written for. When a player is all-in, and the opposing players (or player, in this case) is already in for all bets, all cards MUST be tabled. It would guarantee that the player with the best hand is awarded the pot and it would assure that collusion is not possible. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the dealer preventing the discarded hand from hitting the muck. The way I see it, that is exactly what a good dealer should do. Prevent the cards from hitting the muck, and call the floor for further direction.

[BillM16]

So the blinds were 400 and 800.  The BB only had 400 and was all-in preflop.  How much would the UTG have to put in to call?

[Nick C]

800

[Mateus93]

Bill, if the blinds are 400-800 the minimum value that players need to put to play is 800. in this case the big has only 400, but its not determine the "new blinds" he put 400 because its all he has but for outhers player still 800 and a side pot will be created.

[BillM16]

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  .