Author Topic: Showdown killing error!  (Read 18162 times)


  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Showdown killing error!
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2010, 11:51:54 PM »

NLH tournament.
Two players at the river.
Player A bet ... player B calls.
Player A says "I fold" (he was on pure bluff) ... he throws his cards in the middle face down but while in the air they accidentaly turn faces up ... showing a surprise runner-runner straight nuts!
Player B show trips (he had the nuts at the flop) and call for the floor ... saying that the hand of player A was dead.

I ruled the hand of player A "ALIVE" and so winning! Explaining that the word "FOLD" at showdown isn't an official word as long as the dealer do not follow it and actually KILL the hand mixing it with the MUCK (right?) and that AIR returning cards doesn't matter: we only look the way the cards LAND on the table.

I hate those unwritten situations but did choose my solution ... what do you think?

I like your reasoning. Keep in mind the player B is always going to be understandably disappointed and protest that the guys hand can't be tabled, that's human nature.

Matt Savage

  • TDA Founding Member
  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 13
    • Savage Tournaments
Re: Showdown killing error!
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2010, 06:56:59 PM »
Late to the Party here but I had this same situation happen in the 2002 WSOP where I killed Russell Rosenbloom's hand with because he was away from the table and announced fold. I believe that verbal declarations in turn are binding just like him saying "call" I think his "fold"  has to take precedent and the hand id dead.


  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: Showdown killing error!
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2010, 10:21:17 PM »

I think this is the situation you are referring to, right?:

The circumstances there were (arguably) significantly different than the hand being discussed in this thread.  In your 2002 WSOP hand, Rosenbloom was facing action; the hand had not reached showdown.  Rosenbloom could either call or fold.  He made a verbal declaration of his action.  And enforcing that verbal declaration seems pretty straightforward (even if the circumstances made it a difficult ruling).

In the hand being discussed, all action was complete, and showdown had been reached.  Neither player had any action pending.  They did not have the option to check/call, bet/raise, or fold.  Well, at least they clearly did not have the option to check/call or bet/raise.  The crux of the debate (or at least part of it) is whether they had the option to "fold" in the same sense as when action was pending.

If you believe that the option to fold/muck at showdown is the same as the option to fold when facing action in a betting round, then a verbal declaration of "fold" should be treated as binding in both cases.

On the other hand, if you believe the option to fold/muck at showdown is merely a courtesy extended to players who don't want to reveal their losing hands/bluffs and thereby speed the game along and keep emotions in check, then with no action pending, there is no action that can be verbally declared, and the (tabled) cards alone determine the winner.

The TDA rules are not 100% clear on this issue, but I feel that Rule 8 ("Cards Speak") suggests the latter -- i.e., saying "fold" at showdown is not binding, and the winner is determined by the tabled cards.  I prefer this interpretation.

The second issue -- and I think it should be addressed separately -- has to do with determining when cards are validly "tabled" to be eligible to compete at showdown.  And the main question is: does intent matter?  If intent does not matter, then any cards that get face-up at showdown -- no matter how -- can compete for the pot.  If intent does matter, then if there is a dispute, the TD will have to make a determination based on the totality of the circumstances (including the player's verbal statements) as to the player's intent, and if it is determined that the player intended to muck and not table their cards, the TD would rule the hand dead.

I prefer the interpretation that intent does not matter, so any face-up hand at showdown competes for the pot no matter what.  It's a cleaner interpretation which does not depend on a judgment call from the TD as to a player's intent.  But either interpretation is reasonable.

If the TDA's goal is consistency in all tournaments, you might considering clarifying these two showdown issues in the next edition.

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: Showdown killing error!
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2010, 02:53:14 AM »
Thanks Matt for your advice (even if it confuse me more lol!)!

Thanks also to Oddvark to have clearly exposed the situation & options.

While waiting for a definitive TDA rule at showdown, here are the options we use at our tournaments:

1) At showdown the word "fold" ( as "raise" "call" "check" obviously) means NOTHING and are not biding. To say "fold" or to throw your cards faces down will just make the dealer burning it ... so if you change your mind you just must do it QUICKLY (before the hand is actually mucked)!

2) At showdown if you throw your cards faces down the rest depend HOW it happen:

a) YOU decide to finally recover it (before mucked) and turn it faces up: THEY ARE ALIVE!
b) THE ACTUAL WINNER return it faces up (by error) : THEY ARE ALIVE!
b) THE DEALER, ANY OTHER PLAYER IN OR OUT OF THE HAND (other than the actual winner) return it faces up (by error): THEY ARE DEAD!

We don't pretend to be right: we only have to rule our tourneys waiting for a definitive TDA rule.
Donno for you but here the SHOWDOWNS are the place of a lot of misunderstanding ... let's make it clear!

With best regards,
Guillaume Gleize.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 02:55:31 AM by Guillaume Gleize »