unfair advantage

[RobinK]

 hi all,

 We are in the tournament play, the river card was dealt and there are still 4 players remaining.
 Player A bets 500
 Player B calls
 Player C throws away his cards so badly, that they both ended up face up on the table. (his hand is dead, cause he folded)
 Player D is the next to act now, but he waits.

 At this moment Player B thought it is a showdown situation, because he saw 2 cards face up on the table. He exposes his cards. It all happend quite fast and
 dealer did not take any action. Player C, who is no longer in the game starts to shout and claims , that the hand of Player B should be killed.
 At this time the floorman is called to make rulling. The floorman ruled the hand of player B live, he gave a penalty to player C for making too much noise and talking, when he is no longer in the hand. (player C is a regular guest and he is very often too loud), thats why no warning.

 I completely agree with a ruling here, however I have a question to ask.
 In my opinion, it is an unfair advantage for player D, who knows the content of 2 hands, before he makes his decision on this betting round.
 For this reason, I would bring the action back to player A, allow him to withdraw his bet and reconsider his action. Folowing his "new" action, I would let the player B to
 either withdraw his bet and fold or continue playing with exposed cards with all options opened. The player D, would be the last to act.
 Do you think this ruling would be acceptable and fair, or you think otherwise?

 I was not the floorman making the ruling, and all the players kept their decision. At the end, the player D just folded and the hand was over.


  Your opinions pls,

 regards
                      RobinK

 I

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

I think letting the pervious players retract bets would be a bad idea, and that the ruling made was the correct one.  Although it gives player D an advantage opens the hand up to so much abuse.  Lets say there were 3 hearts on the board and player A had K 3 of hearts, and he sees player C fold the A of hearts and another non suited card, he now knows he cannot be beaten, so you will be allowing him to make his bet again knowing that he holds the nuts, which would give him the advantage and not player D.

Bit of a rambling answer I know, but for that reason I would let the hand play out how you described, I would also give player C a warning for exposing his hand as well as being too loud.

Lewis

[chet]

In my opinion, player D did nothing to gain any advantage, so there is no reason to penalize him.  My ruling would be that Player A's bet and Player B's bet and call stand, Player C's fold stands and the action is on Player D.  All possibilities are open to him, he can call, raise or fold.  There is NO basis upon which to back up the action as far as I am concerned.

I would not penalize Player B, but I would issue a warning that he MUST play in turn.  Player B should have done NOTHING, until Player A has acted (after Player D has acted).  I cannot comment on the penalty to Player C, but it seems right based on the info you presented. 

Hope this helps!!

[Stuart Murray]

I'm with Lewis and Chet, substantial action has already occurred in the street and backing up the action to player A would be more detrimental to the game than leaving it go.  It is player A's own fault for not being aware of who is in the pot and where the action is.

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

 I have to say that everyone has valid arguments, but I like what RobinK says about an advantage to player D. However, because any player could have a decided advantage, as stated by AleaLeedsCardRoom. I think that the bets of players A and B (because they acted before the incident), remain in the pot. Player D can only call and a penalty should be given to Player C for his action. This is the most fair, IMO........Of course a penalty, or at the very least, a stern warning to Player C.

 The only other solution, that I would accept, would be to return the bets of both players A and B, kill player C's hand (of course) and the best hand wins. I really prefer the first solution.

[MikeB]

Hi Robin... just to add my 2 cents to this. While Player D may have some advantage, so do all live players who now see Player B's hand and Player C's discards. The key here I think is that Player D did not come by this advantage by anything other than B's error. When B brings an error on himself he has only himself to blame: the dealer didn't declare it's time to show your hands, and B didn't follow the action... and his error should not compromise the rights of Player D who hasn't done anything wrong. Since the topic of the thread is fairness, the least fair move here would be to limit D's rights because of B's inattentiveness. BTW, while I acknowledge the TD's right to penalize C....  unless C was really obnoxious, I personally wouldn't penalize him because I want players to speak up when they see what they think is an error... in fact all players have an ethical responsibility to speak up when they think an error is being made. By penalizing C here you may send a chilling message to other players in the future, and they might not speak up when a real error has occured. Thanks alot for posting this situation.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 We know that Player D did nothing wrong. Are you saying that he would have every right to fold, call, or even raise? I would also appreciate it if you would acknowledge my post. I would like to know if you agree or disagree. I've tried to break down the situation from every aspect. If Player A were given the right to retract his bet, he would certainly do so if he were bluffing, wouldn't he. Player B acted before prematurely exposing his cards. Player C is obviously out....so why should Player D be allowed to do anything but fold or call? The exposed cards could give any of the active players a chance to know that they might have a hand that can't be beat.

 You are looking for the person to blame for the mistake and I want to know what you are going to do about it.

[chet]

Nick: 

Why are you of the opinion that Player D cannot raise?  Any advantage he received by seeing Player B's cards was certainly not due to anything out of line by Player D, so why is he being limited because of another players error?

Should Player D raise, then it is back to Player A, who can call, re-raise or fold.  He as well has the "advantage" of knowing Player B's cards.

Chet

[MikeB]

There are 2 primary rules I would apply to this situation: 1) That Player B has exposed his hand of his own volition, primarily because he wasn't paying attention. He will not have a dead hand, his cards are still live. 2) That you must protect your own cards, Player B didn't do that, he exposed his cards. He has to play with that handicap.

With those two rules in mind, I then reason that Player A has bet 500, Player B has called, Player C has folded, and the action is now to Player D. He can call the 500, fold, or raise. If D raises, then A and B can call D's raise, re-raise, or fold.

As for limiting player D to just a call or fold, I see no reason to do that. He's not done anything wrong here, and Player B's card exposure was entirely B's own choosing based on not being alert. I want players to follow the action. I don't want to protect them or reward them when they don't follow the action and do something as ill-advised as exposing their cards. So that would be the reason I wouldn't limit D to just a call or fold: Player B's bad actions shouldn't impinge on D's rights.  If we froze the action everytime a player exposed his cards then what sort of shenanigans might we open ourselves up for... anytime a player wants to limit the betting action so the hand won't cost him much, he can just inadvertently flip his cards up.

I don't see any basis for warning or penalizing anyone, unless player C used some banned words when he argued about what rules should apply.

[Nick C]

Chet and Mike,
 I will give an example or two for my reasoning. First scenario: the board reads Ace, 8, 3 of hearts, 7 of clubs, Queen of spades. Player D is holding the Queen and 6 of hearts. Player B (or C) exposes the King of hearts and Oueen of Diamonds....Do you think it is fair to Players A and B that Player D now knows that he has the nut hand?
 Player D did nothing wrong, true, but no player should ever have that kind of an advantage over any player in a game. I hope this makes sense. There are far too many opportunites for collusion with this one.

 I am waiting for a response from Matt, or Jan, or someone from the board. I have to say that AleaLeadsCardRoom is the only post that I agree with. I've repeated what he had written earlier, maybe my example will make it more clear.
 Now is a good time for new members to participate.

[RobinK]

Hi all and thank you for your posts.

 Personally , I do not like to limit the action in any way or let the players, who already acted, to change their original decision.

 The reasons why the Player C was penalized are several. He is a regular client to our poker room and he knows well our house rules. He was shouting very loudly at the floorman and some of the players. He used some vulgar words as well and He was warned two times, the previous day. In addition, there was a reason to believe, that his hand did not end up on the table face up, because of an accident. This bring us to a next fact, which was missing in the original post.

 Player C is a friend of Player D. There was no solid proof of collusion between these two players, however there was a suspicion. In case, that player A would go all-in, trying to steel the pot by bluffing and there was only 1 or 2 cards, which were dangerous for player D. If, both of those were exposed, then it is an easy call for player D. Player A would be eliminated, because of an mistake of other 2 players. We can not be sure, how would be the hand played, if there were no exposed cards, but I believe in certain situation is better for the game to limit the action or similar ruling.

 For the rest 99% of situations, I completely agree with MikeB and His opinions.

  Regards

         RK

[chet]

Robin: 

If you have reason to suspect that Players C and D are colluding, but you have no proof, I would certainly do everything you possibly can to ensure that they are NEVER at the same table, unless it is the final table of your event.  Even then I would suggest that you ensure they are seated at opposite ends of the table, never next to each other. 

If they question your seating assignments, I would go so far as to inform both of them that other players have complained and suspect not everything is on the up and up.  If they don't like it and stop playing at your events, you are probably better off.

Hope this helps!!

[chet]

Nick:

The following does NOT include Robin's later information about the suspected collusion between Players C and D.

I still do not see any reason to effectively penalize Player D by not allowing him to raise because of inappropriate acts of another player.  I just cannot swallow that the intent of any rules (TDA or otherwise) is to do that. 

Now, based on Robin's information about the suspected collusion between Players C and D.

If I was aware of that information then I can see not allowing Player D to raise.  If the actions of these two players is suspect, then I can certainly see limiting the options available to Player D.  In fact, if I thought I had enough 'evidence' and Player D calls, I might declare Player D's hand dead leaving his call in the pot.

That would sure boil the water, but as I said in my response to Robin, his game may be better off without these to jokers.

Chet

[Nick C]

Chet, RobinK, Mike B and Stuart

 The situation that was recently submitted (and omitted) from the original post is exactly why I would not allow Player D any option other than fold or call.

 Chet, why can't you agree? This is your quote after finding out that there might be collusion between Player's C and D. "If I was aware of that information then I can see not allowing Player D to raise."
 
 RobinK, what is the 99% that you agree with from Mike B's post? Do you agree the 1% that he was wrong about (in your opinion), could be the most important issue that needs clarification? Player D can raise? Player A can reraise? That is not in the best interest of your tournament, in my opinion.

 Stuart, do you still feel the same about your reference to substantial action after reading what we have added to this post?

 This might be the most important subject that's been submitted in the last two months.

[Stuart Murray]

I hate collusion,

With regards to the information that has now came to light, I still wont wind the action back.  Player D in some instances may be restricted to just calling in my eyes given the additional information, but that does not change my original ruling that if it is players that are not suspected of collusion D's options would remain open.

With regard to killing D's hand before showdown, that's something that is not in keeping with current practices, but it may be worthy of considering a penalty/disqualification to D after the hand if I Suspected him of collusion during the hand - it's the same as two players agreeing to check down an all-in player, you would let the hand play out and then disqualify the two players once the hand was over, allowing the natural elimination to occur.

It brings me to memory of a recent situation where I had two Czechoslovakians at the same table who were blatantly exploiting the English only rule until I became aware of the fact.  I gave them both two warnings before they eventually got the message and I am sure to this day they used the language barrier as an excuse to collude with each other - other players stated that they were taking it in turns to win hands and other players did not stand a chance as they were up against both players.  That particular evening one more foreign word and they would of been disqualified and faced exclusion from the league.

Regards
Stuart