Author Topic: 2 questions  (Read 6118 times)

The Hitman

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
2 questions
« on: September 07, 2010, 02:12:36 PM »
Hi everyone,

1.I faced a case in a big french tournament last week:
Two players at the showdown, the dealer ask to the first player (he's the sb) to show his cards, the player turns only one card (a 9 for a pair on the board) and the second one after a few seconds shows his whole hand (Q-7 os for a higher pair on the board).
The dealer ask to the first player to show both cards but the player let the other card face down. The dealer turns the other card and the player says "why do you show my second card? I know I've lost I don't want to show it, I know the rules". Dealer call a floorman who agrees with the player.

In your opinion, who's right?
If we are at the showdown, aren't the players forced to show the whole hand?

2. In the same tournament:
UTG and UTG+1 have folded and UTG+3 noticed that he has only one card. The dealer immediatly sees that UTG+2 has 3 cards cause he took a card to his neighbour during the round of dealing (he was discussing and was not aware). Dealer declares misdeal and take back all the cards.
Is it the correct decision? Should he have burnt both hands instead in order not to penalize the others players because of one's mistake?


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3358
Re: 2 questions
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 03:12:21 PM »
dogzy, In your first situation I think that the player was wrong to not show both cards, but IMO, if he wanted to throw his other card into the muck after seeing that the opposing player had him beat, let him. The proper procedure is for the dealer to ask to see the hand of the SB, which he did. A good dealer should ask to see the complete hand so he can properly read the hand. You stated that the other player exposed his hand (prematurely), obviously before the SB showed his complete hand. Players at the table have a right to see a called hand, but it is not the responsibility of the dealer to turn the card over. What if, by turning the card, it revealed a winning hand? Players have a responsibility to protect their own hand. If they are in violation of a rule then they should be given a warning, but I am not in agreement to insist that a player turn over both cards if he decides to muck his hand.

 In the second situation, I think that both hands (UTG+2 and UTG+3) should have been killed. I base this decision on the fact that two players have acted (UTG and UTG+1). This could be a tough one to sort out. I know that there are members that have a tough time defining what constitutes substantial action. If UTG and UTG+1 had stayed in the hand by calling or raising, the action would have continued, correct? Therefore, there should be no difference. I think the dealer should not have declared a mis-deal (that should not be his call anyway), the dealer should have asked for a ruling from the floor. It is my belief that the correct call is for the hand to continue.


  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: 2 questions
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 09:42:47 PM »
2nd situation: This entirely depends on what your standard of substantial action is. The TDA has not as yet adopted a formal standard. But IMO the most common standard is two players acting (i.e. "action and reaction") which you clearly have here with two players folding. SO... once you have substantial action you can't declare a misdeal and the hand should proceed. I would kill both of the hands that have an illegal number of cards.

1st situation: A pet peeve of mine is dealers not taking control of the showdown and letting players run antics on each other when we should be reading cards (IMO, a great example of dealer losing control is the "DeWolfe case" of last year... not the TD but the dealer). To that extent, I applaude the dealer trying to determine the winning hand according to the Cards Read standard as quickly as possible. Although in this case he was a bit aggressive by turning over the other card.... I would be more concerned about it had the player not exposed ANY cards, but once he exposed one, UNLESS HE DECLARED HE WAS MUCKING AND PUSHED THE HAND FORWARD (which he didn't do here), the dealer is rightful to assume the player wants to compete in the showdown. And competing in the showdown BY READING OF CARDS is what we want to have happen anyway. The most appropriate response would be for the dealer, after first asking politely to see the 2nd card, to become progressively more insistent to see it and call the floor if he refuses to show (it's unlikely to get that far). But because the player has exposed one card, an action which can't be in itself interpreted as a muck, the dealer can only assume that a normal showdown is what should occur here so I'm not going to get too worked up that he turned the 2nd card. The key for me is that if this player didn't want his 2nd card exposed HE should have mucked it immediately, we're not mindreaders, and I don't want the showdown being run by the players as it was in the DeWolfe situation, I want the dealer running it. "Its up to the player to make his intentions clear"... by showing one card and saying nothing the best interpretation IMO is that the player wants to compete in the showdown. Mucking at showdown is an aberration and the dealer cannot be expected to assume that's what you want to do unless you so declare and discard immediately... I acknowledge that some TDs may understandably be more critical of the dealer here as we generally don't want dealers exposing hands and perhaps some clarifying rules language would be useful for these rare situations.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 01:22:40 AM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
Re: 2 questions
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2010, 01:58:07 AM »


We all know thoses (so boring) situations where:

- both players pretend to the pot
- both players think they have a very few chance to win
- both players want to hide the maximum of their hand in case of lost

 they (close to the "Rolland de Wolf" case durint the EPT) create a confusing "angling" suspicions on innocent players!

... So let's see the action in slow motion:

P1 shows only one card (making a pair of 9) ... he his wrong (and I do my best to stop this kind of attitude). The other player (P2) is in his right to see BOTH cards and HE AND the dealer must ask him to do it! That's HERE why I hate so much the attitude of P1: whatever stronger or weaker, P2 looks now "unsportmanlike" but I totally desagree: P1 ACTUALLY was unsportmanlike to create this confusing situation!

At this moment let's imagine P1 muck the rest (Roland de Wolf Case): he renounce to the pot and P2 wins it whatever his hand! THE PLAYERS ARE ADULTS RESPONSIBLE OF THEIR ACTS.

OK now let's go back to the present exemple:

P2 shows both cards BEFORE P1 shows his second card ... here P2 makes a little error: he had the right to OBLIGE P1 to show both cards if he pretend to win the pot (P1 still don't know if he wins or not) but now P1 can safely choose to fold his hand! So because of P2 showing: the dealer can't anymore oblige P1 to show the second card!

As a floor: I will rule it (and explain it) that way.

I will ask P1 not to do it again: show or fold.



No misdeal (2 players acted).
Hands of UTG2 & UTG3 are dead


« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 02:02:54 AM by Guillaume Gleize »