Suggested changes to Rule #14 - Live Cards at Showdown

[Nick C]

Ralph,

 Maybe Mike Bishop should chime in here. I want to know how such a hand, (that you just described) can be retrieved and resurrected.
It will not happen at my table.

[MikeB]

I don't see what the controversy is.

1: 100% identifiable cards are live at showdown.
2: Cards read... declarations or gestures have no bearing.
3: It's up to the TD to decide, in cases where there's any question as to what a particular hand is, whether it's identifiable to the TD's sole satisfaction.
4: If you, Nick, are not satisfied that a particular hand is identifiable, then the player has to live with that. If another TD is satisfied that a particular hand is identifiable, then he rules accordingly. Recognize that this is at player's risk when the player releases control of a hand that has not been tabled and then decides he wants to table it.

What's the controversy? Do you want the hand dead at time of discard... that's not the TDA Rule. Do you want it dead the instant a dealer touches it... that's not the TDA Rule (i.e. the dealer is not "an extension of the muck"). The clear point at which the hand is killed is when it is "into the muck". Otherwise the hand by definition is identifiable and may be tabled and the cards will speak for themselves.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 If you read my posts you should know exactly how I feel. I agree with the hand being dead once it hits the muck. I said nothing about killing the hand when the dealer touches it. If the owner of the hand can retrieve the hand before it hits the muck...it's live.

 What I don't like is when the TD is called over to the table, having seen nothing himself. The situation is explained and the owner of the mucked hand whispers in the TD's ear what the cards were and somehow they feel they have the right to dig though the muck in search of the mystery hand.

 I've clearly stated that a winning hand, properly tabled can not be killed, beyond that  any hand discarded by the owner, or unprotected from the dealer is at high risk of being killed without the possibility of being resurrected.

 What I've written is in complete compliance with the TDA Rules:At showdown a player must protect his hand while waiting for it to be read (See also Rule 60). If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules the hand was not clearly read, the player has no claim
to the pot. The TDs decision on whether a hand was sufficiently tabled is final

[BillM16]

What's the controversy? Do you want the hand dead at time of discard... that's not the TDA Rule. Do you want it dead the instant a dealer touches it... that's not the TDA Rule (i.e. the dealer is not "an extension of the muck"). The clear point at which the hand is killed is when it is "into the muck". Otherwise the hand by definition is identifiable and may be tabled and the cards will speak for themselves.

I think this is the controversy:

• When a player discards, sending his cards face-down in a forward motion, at some point it is considered to be "into the muck."  As discussed earlier, everyone seems to agree that the dealers muck-pile of discarded cards is clearly "the muck," but perhaps not exclusively.  Some players, dealers, casinos, TDs, etc., have other definitions of "the muck" that might include the entire area beyond the betting line, visible or not.  It might include the board cards, the burn cards, and/or the pot.  So, part #1 of the controversy is a lack of universal definition of "the muck."
• Part #2 of the controversy regards the manner in which the cards hit the muck.  According to TDA Rule #14, if taken literally, it must be the dealer who puts the cards into the muck for the cards to be considered killed.  If they are not killed by the dealer, then we can ask are they 100% identifiable.
• Part #3 of the controversy is whether or not discarded live cards (not killed by the dealer) are 100% identifiable.  We know from the literal reading of the rule that properly killed cards are excluded from this consideration.  But aside from that, what is meant by "100% identifiable?"  Here, this is left to the TD's discretion.  Some TD's might rule that a discarded card touching any part of "their" muck is no longer 100% identifiable.  Others might rule that if a player can identify the suit and rank of two face down cards they are 100% identifiable.
• Part #4, is the fact that this rule is only applicable at showdown. It all other cases, when a player discards his hand face down in a forward motion it is a universally recognized gesture meaning that they have given up all rights to any part of the pot - they have folded.

 

Now, I agree that properly tabled cards speak at showdown. A player claiming to have a Royal Flush doesn't win unless they actually have it.  A player cannot declare an all-in raise after all action is complete.  Still, players at showdown are allowed to muck their cards without tabling them.  But, does mucking require dealer participation and/or a TD to declare the hand as unidentifiable?  Is there anything that a player can do to clearly commit to a binding muck at showdown? Are players who are yet to table their cards required to ask the dealer if the discarded, partially mucked, partially identifiable hand is still alive?


I think the two recommended changes to the rule posted earlier are good steps in the right direction.

Regards,
B~