Folding again at showdown

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

I suppose in the old days a hand called at showdown COULDN'T be folded even if not all in! This must have been easy to play for everybody and easy to rule.
But one day some floor in a casino accepted a fold at showdown from a big customer too proud to show his missed bluff ... and now we all are in trouble (lol).

Here we go (again):

Texas hold'em no limit tournament. Three tables left. Bubble time. Two players left at showdown. Huge pot but no one is all-in. Player A (who was the last to raise at river) says clearly "I fold" and throws his hand faces down far away from the muck in a little forward motion. The dealer do not have the time to mix this hand with the muck because player A is far away and because player B (who called the last bet and his closer from the dealer) throws his hand directly into the muck as sure to be the winner. That's when player A says "Hey wait!" then returns his hand (still quite close to him) revealing a straight he didn't saw at first glance.

I was still near another table as floor. Player B complained that it was too late for player A and that he was winning as the last player standing with cards before he mucked them. The dealer told him there were no fold at showdown until the hand is actually mucked ... then called for me.

I know "fold" is not a clear option at showdown and I had to explain what the dealer started to tell them. I told the players that usually to fold before the showdown is binding and clearly killing the hand but when at showdown it's just information to the dealer and the hand is only killed when actually mixed into the muck. So player A should win the pot.

BUT ...

Even if there are maybe 3 mistakes here:

1) Player A misreading the board and folding prematurely his hand.
2) Player B mucking his hand himself and too quickly before receiving the pot.
3) Dealer is too slow to muck player A or too slow to stop player B from mucking.

I didn't want here a player loose this huge pot because of the clear error of a player (A). For the best interest of the game and using the "TDA gold rule #1" I ruled the hand of player A dead. I explained that it's his own responsibility to be clear in his actions. His unclear attitude made the opponent player act has if winner and didn't let the dealer enough time and opportunity to impeach that situation.

Arf - I hate that unclear showdown fold rule!

Would have you rule it like me?

GG      

[K-Lo]

Ugh... what a terrible situation.  Yes, if the rules were slightly different (e.g. cards must be shown even in a non-all-in-showdown, or a forward folding action is a binding fold assuming no misinformation -- both of these are not in the rules), then the decision is more straightforward. 

I like your analysis, and it is clear that everyone has some responsibility for the error here.  I respect your decision, but truthfully I would probably have ruled differently.  Unless player A was known to purposely "fold" his cards as an angle to try to get the player to dump his, then I think B is most at fault here.  It is so easy for B to protect his cards until being awarded the pot, which he did not do, and at the end of the day A is the only one left holding cards.  I would have to say that I would have probably awarded the pot to A.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen,
 We have discussed similar situations on other posts and my feelings are still the same. When a player releases his cards in a forward motion, his intent is to fold. The hand should never be tossed away from the muck. K-Lo I don't agree that B was more at fault. He should have protected his cards by not tossing them but, how can we award the pot to a player that folded his hand, and got lucky that he didn't throw the cards where he was supposed to! I've been complaining about the showdown rules for tournaments for a long time. Like Guillaume said, the old rule was best. Any player at the table should have the right to see a called hand! Why don't we just simplify things, and insist that all cards be tabled? Why is it only done when a player is all-in? Please don't tell me it protects the integrity of the game, on the contrary, it allows colluding players the luxury of mucking their hands without worry of exposure.

 Guillaume, I like your call.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Thank you guys for the answers & support.

I saw DocWilson post under and it's quite close in a way: this old fold problem!
I don’t know for you guys, but here let say 80% of the complex situations occurs at SHOWDOWN!
I think here of the complex ones. The others are generally easier to rule. But at SHOWDOWN it's always more complex!

Remember the "Roland de Wolfe case". Thomas Kremser (TD of EPT) said it was the tougher ruling of his career.

Maybe because the TDA rules and the rules in general are not that clear at SHOWDOWN.
If I had the opportunity to participate to some TDA meeting one year ... I would focus on the SHOWDOWN.
I would prepare a clear (and funny) speech and try to MOTIVATE them to find a UNIFIED SIMPLE RULES for those eternal showdown clashes!

I said "try" ...

 

 

[K-Lo]

We have discussed similar situations on other posts and my feelings are still the same. When a player releases his cards in a forward motion, his intent is to fold. The hand should never be tossed away from the muck. K-Lo I don't agree that B was more at fault. He should have protected his cards by not tossing them but, how can we award the pot to a player that folded his hand, and got lucky that he didn't throw the cards where he was supposed to!

LOL.  Nick - You know I only said that because I'm just trying to protect your position that the cards are still alive until absolutely mucked!

GG - You are so right.  I agree that more focus needs to be on the showdown.  Although, I think they tried to do something last time, at least partly, with the "contested" vs "uncontested" showdown provisions being introduced, but now being deleted from the rules.  Some clarity on Nick's point would be welcome (whether we should have everyone show at any showdown, all-in or not), and I for one have been wanting a "forward folding motion" to be binding (i.e. hand is dead even if the dealer has not yet mucked them) unless the fold was a result of misinformation by the live opponent or by the dealer.  I say under the current rules, it's harder for me to arrive at GG's call if going "by the book", but I do like the call and wish the folding rule could be clarified so that would be the "standard" call.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi Guillaume,

I support your decision 100%, if we look at RROP it says:

DEAD HANDS
1.   Your hand is declared dead if:

(b) You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).

There is indeed no such term as "fold" when at showdown, however in this circumstance player A has surrendered claim to the pot by making a forward motion with his hand that has caused a re-action from another player, so yes B gets the pot by having the last live hand at showdown, it would be different if one of the players was all-in, you could of retreived the hand and awarded it to A.

Regards
Stuart

[JasperToo]

Stuart typed the words right out of my mouth.  A's actions caused a reaction and the his hand is dead.  Simple enough.  Though, the showdown rules can be a little complicated.

[Guillaume Gleize]

1) I suppose we would have ruled it the same way if player A would have only but clearly said "I FOLD" without forward motion … ? (I would)!

2) Can we conclude too that if Player A would have done the same unclear actions but nobody would have reacted after him (jut call the floor) … his hand would be alive … ? (Yes for me)!

[Nick C]

 This is a great topic for discussion, and a good time to suggest some changes. If you have to show the hand, then you can't kill the hand (called at the showdown), turn them over, best hand wins! What's wrong with that?

 K-Lo, I know that you feel there is a need for a little work on the showdown rules. I agree, but my feelings lean more in the direction of a complete overhaul!

 As far as my position on the hand being live until it is absolutely mucked, as you correctly stated, I do feel that way. However, my criticism is directed at the dealer. IMO, there are situations when the dealer should kill a hand that is released in a forward motion, instantly! There are other times when players need some protection from folding their hand when they are in for all bets and believe they have won the pot.

 I still don't understand why saying "fold" means nothing at the showdown. I thought verbal was binding? Don't try to explain it to me, please. I will always base my decision on protecting the non-offending player.

[K-Lo]

I can definitely agree with the ruling that has been made and that everyone agrees on, but it is interesting because in Spence's previous thread not everyone agreed that a fold was binding at showdown:  http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=551.0.  Anyways, I like Nick's note that he will always base his decision on protecting the non-offending player - I think that seems fair.  In this light, I am fine with GG's other two rulings as well.

For discussion purposes, what about these other two situations:

3)  Same as before, A throws his hand forward in a folding motion.  B throws his hand in the muck.  At that point, another player at the table says "wow, no one had a flush" (showing four hearts on the board).  A says "oh wait, I had a heart" and flips over his "folded" cards showing the deuce of hearts.

4) Same as before, A throws his hand forward in a folding motion.  This time, B actually flashes his cards, shows trips, and then throws his hand in the muck.  At that point, another player at the table says "wow, no one had a flush" (showing four hearts on the board).  A says "oh wait, I had a heart" and flips over his "folded" cards showing the deuce of hearts.

Based on the discussion in this thread, it would seem that A's hand should remain folded in 3).  In 4) though, one can argue that it is important that the best hand win, so would you award the pot to A, thus penalizing B for actually showing his hand at showdown?

[Spence]

Along with the thread that K-Lo mentioned I want the best hand to win under most circumstances. I know it's not the popular vote on this particular thread but I'm thinking if I came to the table and had to make a ruling and saw B's hand in the muck and A with and open hand of a straight or whatever it is I would probably rule it live. Was it in the muck? No. Did it touch the muck? No. Did he turn it over himself? Yes. Hmmm... Ok, Live hand.

[mooredog]

By verbalizing "I fold" I would hold him to that and give the pot to player B.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Wow ... the two last posts are -> <-

Certainly something to work out for the TDA ...

 

[Nick C]

I've said it many times in the past and I'll say it again. In tournament play why not rule that all called hands be tabled? Think of the problems it would solve. Everyone in the world sees the hand on TV but the players at the table can not ...unless a player is all-in    

[Spence]

I'm starting to swing your way as well Nick. I've heard of some rooms that do a forced showdown to "speed up the game" but it always seemed counter intuitive to me. Having players fold at the showdown would speed things along faster wouldn't it? Although a forced showdown would eliminate many issues...