Folding winning hand, are verbals binding at showdown, & RDW misc.

[Guillaume Gleize]

So many tourneys ... so many cases!

I made a decision opposite to the one I made two years before! OOOOPPS ...

Two years ago:
At the showdown (no one all-in):
Player A do not pretend to the pot anymore and choose to fold his cards faces down ...
The dealer (buy error) turn his cards faces up and ... it appeard to be the WINNING HAND (!) ...
I GAVE THE POT TO PLAYER A! (...)

This year:
At the showdown (no one all-in):
Player A do not pretend to the pot anymore and choose to fold his cards faces down, stand up and go for a walk (or WC ...)
At the exact moment player A left the room, another player (player Z who was NOT on the hand) turn the folded cards of player A faces up (!!!) ... and it appeard to be the WINNING HAND (!) ...
I DID NOT GAVE THE POT TO PLAYER A! (...)

OUCH ...

Wich decision was good?
Don't tell me both?
Don't tell me none?

 
  

  

[Nick C]

In both hands, I would need more information. Was the action on the player when he surrendered his hand? Example: At the showdown, the action is on Player A and he folds. The hand is dead. If the opposing player turns it over, then it would be live. In both examples that you gave, the dealer should have killed the hand immediately. When a player voluntarily surrenders their hand, they give up any right to the pot. There will always be exceptonal situations; a player is led to believe that there are no other players in the hand and they think they are the winner or some other unusual situation.

Nick C

[Guillaume Gleize]

Yes, the action actually is on player A when he folds ... he really gives up (even say "I fold" if you want) ... the point is:

Actually (and waiting for more advises from TDA or other references) I still apply this way (wich is my own humble feeling of the "best interest of the game"):

At showdown any player CAN give up and fold his hand face down ... but if (for exemple):

- Some wind return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- Some unvolunteer movement of the hand or arm of the dealer or any player return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- A player who participate to the showdown voluntarily return the hand on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
- A player not participating to the showdown (or the dealer) voluntarily return the hand on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is dead! (so I would not rule it as I did 2 years ago: I support now by this way the decision of Thomas Kremser at the Barcelona EPT Rolland De Wolf case: the dealer returned by error the folded winning hand ... wich was declared dead by Thomas!).

(I don't speak here of any player asking to see the hand in suspicion of collusion wich is another subject!)

GG

[Guillaume Gleize]

Any comment on thoses last exemples?

GG

[MikeB]

At showdown any player CAN give up and fold his hand face down ... but if (for exemple):
- Some wind return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)!
GG: It's not written in any specific rule I'm aware of, so I'll just speak for myself: at showdown the term "fold" is meaningless... UNTIL CARDS ARE IRRETRIEVABLY MUCKED BY THE DEALER they can be tabled and played... even if the player says "I fold" or "pot is yours", etc... The cards are still live until irretrievably mucked... The player can change his/her mind, snatch the cards back and table them, for example So if they catch air and turn up, I would rule them live.
- Some unvolunteer movement of the hand or arm of the dealer or any player return the hand while in the air so it falls on the table faces up REVEALING THE WINNING HAND: the hand is live (and wins)! Same answer as above, same reason

Your other examples are trickier, because they don't involve accidental exposure of an identifiable hand at showdown... They involve exposure that is A) Deliberate AND B) Erroneous, (except perhaps in the case where a legitimate request to see a hand is made)... because in all those cases the player intended to bet/fold or check/fold, i.e. discard the hand at showdown without revealing it. Personally I feel this entire subject deserves to be a topic of review to establish a comprehensive rule. As a side note, I don't agree that this is exactly what happened in the RDW case because RDW had identified his hand and showed one card, and the entire charade went on for almost 30 seconds before he finally pushed his hand forward. That's far different than an immediate face down fold. But the RDW topic is also worthy of TDA review IMO.

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY Mike ...

Sure this last horrible exemple (the "folded" hand at showdown voluntarily returned faces up by the dealer - or any player out of hand - and discovered as winning hand) REALLY HAPPENED a couple of time around me ... and need in emergency a clear answer because IT CREATE TOUGH CONFUSION!

    

We seems to agree with the other cases (hand is live and wins).

GG

[Nick C]

Mike,

I disagree with you on this one.

  I would have a tough time awarding a pot to a player that said he was out and tossed his cards into the muck only to have them flip over and reveal a winner! If that isn't under the category of protecting your own hand, I don't know what is. Example; action on Player A, he says "I'm out" and throws his hand to the muck, Player B (the only opposing player) wins the pot. If Player A's cards happen to blow over in the wind, the hand should be dead anyway. That's the way I see it. How is Player A's verbal statement, "I'm out" not recognized the same as any verbal declaration? "I'm out" or "I fold" or"I give up" or "You win" or "I missed" (while tossing the cards to the muck) indicate that the player has no interest in the pot and does not want to reveal their hand. I don't see any need to complicate the process at the showdown. There are rules that already cover this situation and besides, the incidence of the situation described above, has never even happened to me in 45 years of dealing.

Thanks for listening.

Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

I am with Nick on this one,

Where a verbal statement has been made conceding the pot and/or the players hole cards have been passed with a forward motion face down I would rule their hand dead, there is one example I can think of that I would rule the hand live and that would be where the player has pushed their cards forward to muck as a result of incorrect information being received, which is a rare example of where I would be willing to attempt retrieval.

With regard to the RDW case I agree fully with Thomas's ruling that RDW's hand was dead, as he made a clear attempt to muck his cards causing another player to table his own cards, irrespective of him showing the K.

Regards
Stuart

[MikeB]

Mike,
I disagree with you on this one. I would have a tough time awarding a pot to a player that said he was out and tossed his cards into the muck only to have them flip over and reveal a winner! If that isn't under the category of protecting your own hand, I don't know what is. Example; action on Player A, he says "I'm out" and throws his hand to the muck, Player B (the only opposing player) wins the pot. If Player A's cards happen to blow over in the wind, the hand should be dead anyway. That's the way I see it. How is Player A's verbal statement, "I'm out" not recognized the same as any verbal declaration? "I'm out" or "I fold" or"I give up" or "You win" or "I missed" (while tossing the cards to the muck) indicate that the player has no interest in the pot and does not want to reveal their hand. I don't see any need to complicate the process at the showdown. There are rules that already cover this situation and besides, the incidence of the situation described above, has never even happened to me in 45 years of dealing. Thanks for listening. Nick C

Hi Nick. I certainly understand your POV, and I'm sure it's shared by a number of people. Keep in mind we're talking about the SHOWDOWN... there is no "action" on anyone. Obviously if you are facing action and you say "I fold", then you've folded. But the action is over at this point... we are at showdown, and from my "school of thought" it's CARDS SPEAK. No verbal declarations mean anything at showdown "I have X hand": is meaningless, your cards read. "You win" is meaningless, your cards read. Ditto for "I fold"... there is nothing binding about the use of the term fold at showdown, or any other verbal utterance, IMO, the only thing that is binding is the reading of the cards. Otherwise we are going to get into the business of "parsing words" at showdown just as we do during the course of the action, rather than focusing stricxtly on the value of the cards. To that extent, as long as a hand that has paid to be at the showdown is identifiable, it can be tabled. The classic case is where a player at showdown doesn't realize there's 4 suited cards on board and pushes his hand forward face down only to realize the 4-flush and recall he has one of that suit in his hand, pulls his hand back and shows the flush.... This said, I fully agree that a Dealer should respect a players wish to muck his/her hand face down at showdown. But until those cards are no longer identifiable, or at the very least tapped to the muck by the Dealer, IMO they can be retreived by the player. If the player has the dumb luck of catching air that turns the cards up, then luck went his way in that case. This all said, I fully recognize there are others on the other side of this issue who do believe that utterances such as "I fold" or "you win" or "it's yours" or "take it" or "good call, you caught my bluff" when at showdown are binding "acts of capitulation"... again, perhaps an important area for a definitive TDA rule.

[MikeB]

With regard to the RDW case I agree fully with Thomas's ruling that RDW's hand was dead, as he made a clear attempt to muck his cards causing another player to table his own cards, irrespective of him showing the K.  Regards Stuart

My problem with the RDW incident is that the videotape shows that RDW had declared his hand and showed a card at least 20 to 30 seconds before he finally pushed the cards forward. IMO during that time the Dealer should have aggressively requested to see all cards, rather than what the tape appears to me to show. It appears that the dealer remained silent while Tobias postured and grinned as though it was obvious his hand was better. The dealer was silent while these two players engaged in verbal ruses between each other, and I don't think that's appropriate showdown procedure... Once at showdown, from my school of thought, the gamesmanship is over and it's time to get the cards turned up and read according to the Cards Speak standard, nothing else. I feel the dealer was too passive at this process, allowing the gamesmanship to spill over into the showdown. I think the appropriate response to RDW's tabling of one card and declaration of his hand would have been for the dealer to reply "Sir I'll need to see both your cards in order to read your hand". From what I can see of the tape, this did not happen and the Dealer thereby lost control of the showdown. Others may think that's too intrusive by the dealer and would be interfering in "legitimate" showdown gamesmanship....  I don't disagree necessarily with Thomas's ruling because the damage had already been done by the time he got there.... I know everyone has a different take on this incident and perhaps there is a clarification in the rules / procedures that may come out of it.

[MikeB]

TY Mike ...  Sure this last horrible exemple (the "folded" hand at showdown voluntarily returned faces up by the dealer - or any player out of hand - and discovered as winning hand) REALLY HAPPENED a couple of time around me ... and need in emergency a clear answer because IT CREATE TOUGH CONFUSION!

    

GG: If you want to use a precedent for these other examples, you could refer to Kremser's ruling in the RDW incident. I haven't watched that tape in quite awhile, but from memory it was initially thought by many that the dealer had exposed RDW's card as a result of a request by Tobias to see the hand... however (again from memory), it finally came out that the Dealer had erroneously exposed the card, and that Tobias had not formally requested to see it. Since it was erroneously exposed, the hand was not considered live. You may find this precedent to be userful in your other cases.

We seems to agree with the other cases (hand is live and wins).

We may, but as you can see, there are plenty of people on the other side of the issue. Ultimately I think it will need to be resolved formally, perhaps at the next TDA Summit?

[Stuart Murray]

Very good points Mike, I understand your stance fully and further has caused me to reconsider the showdown, with the prime example being "Fold" as the player has reached showdown no fold is actually possible and he is not facing a bet.

This will require some deep consideration and revision to see how I am going to move it forward.

With regard to the RDW I don't see me changing my stance, he announced King High which is not of any show,down value.  The sole and only reason I support Thomas' decision is because he pushed his cards into the muck, I do feel the dealer made a bad situation worse by not protecting the muck pile though or usurping some control of the situation.

Cheers
Stuart

[Nick C]

What are you talking about RDW? I hate abreviations. How can you say that the showdown makes a difference? If you say your out, and throw your cards in the muck....the hand is dead. Period.

I need to hear more on this one.
Nick C

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Nick,

RDW - Roland De Wolfe Case at the EPT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2agX80ZyE

[Guillaume Gleize]

WOW ... This situation (together with the other one : the last player at showdown with cards obliged - or not - to show is hand) shows that at SHOWDOWN: we must all help the TDA to create clear rules!

So what about this first conclusion (following - or not - some of your advises) :

At showdown a player (at is turn) says "I fold" and throws his WINNING cards in the middle faces down (but not in the muck so clearly identified):

A) If he finally realises that his hand wins the pot and turn it faces up: HAND ALIVE WINS!
B) Some involunteer element (air, unvolunteer movement of anybody) turns the cards faces up: HAND ALIVE WINS!
C) The dealer (buy error) ask the player to show the hand or directly turns it faces up himself: HAND DEAD! (RDW reference)
D) Any player (but not the actual winner) ask the player to show the hand (this can be exceptionaly accepted) or directly turns it faces up himself (a crime): HAND DEAD!
E) The actual winner ask the player to show the hand (personnaly I allways refuse it: this is only curiosity) or directly turns it faces up himself (a crime): HAND ALIVE WINS!

... So my (humble) actual responses to thoses two showdown problems are:

1) Must the last possesor of a hand at showdown show it to win the pot? ... NO! (in general)
2) Does a folded winning hand et showdown wins the pot if returned by someone else? ... NO! (in general)

My general spirit (when facing a "no-rule" situation) is to RESPONSABILIZE the players. This rude and beautifull game had been invented buy rude guys from Texas ... I try to respect their memory and (only in "no-rule" situation), I prefer to favor the player FIRMLY HOLDING HIS CARDS IN HIS STRONG COWBOY HAND (lol) to wait for my decision than the FOOL OR ANGLING PLAYER (lol again) who can't play poker ... or tried a tricky move!

Come on: the name of this game isn't it "HOLD'EM"? HOLD YOUR CARDS MAN!

 

But once again the day the TDA choose a CLEAR RULE: I will follow it IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR JOB!