Show one show all

[K-Lo]

I am basing this case on a fact scenario from another source - it may be worthy of some discussion here.

Three players are contesting a pot, post-flop.  A checks, B bets, C raises big, and A (may or may not be accidental) folds but in doing so, shows B his cards. 

Clearly, the "show one, show all" rule applies here, and C is also entitled to see the hand that A has showed B.   Leaving aside the issue of penalizing A for exposing his cards with action pending, the question is:  Would you allow play to continue as normal if B now decides to raise?  Would you consider allowing C to be all-in for previous bets given that B has had the first opportunity to benefit from the information about A's hand?  Or is that unfair to B, who presumably has not done anything wrong?

[Nick C]

Great question!

 I have had similar discussions on prior posts, with little satisfaction. This is a perfect example to stop the action, show the card to the raising player,"back-up" the action to the  player that raised and allow him the option to retract his bet. This is a serious infraction on the part of the folding player. I realize that it is not the fault of the player facing the raise but, I see it as too much of an advantage for the player that has seen the exposed card.

 I see two options depending on the situation:
       Suspend betting for that round, or show the card to all players and back-up the action; as I suggested.

[Tristan]

Interesting thought.

What I have done in the past is just to expose the hand and continue the action as normal.

I see your point in suspending the betting, but I'm not sure that is a great answer.  My reasoning would be that if you suspended betting there, you would also have to do it every time a player accidentally flips a card while mucking and in most other situations where cards are exposed.  The same thought applies, there is someone who gets to be the first to benefit from that extra knowledge.  Wouldn't it technically be the same if Player A had thrown his cards toward the muck and they flipped?

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 The difference from exposing a card in other situations is; action has not taken place and all players have the benefit of seeing the exposed card before they act. You might want to consider that the player that had the advantage over the bettor can only call and not raiise, but that would still be flawed. This could also be very situational based on the relevance of the exposed card to the board.

[Tristan]

You aren't getting what I am saying, Nick.

If, in the same situation, if player A had not intentionally showed his hand to Player B, but instead had thrown his cards to the muck and they accidentally flipped...would you still suspend action or back up the bets? 

If so, wouldn't there be a number of possible angles presented here?

[Nick C]

Tristan,

 There can almost always be some sort of angle intended. The most obvious of which is the player that mucked his hand and (accidentally?) exposed his cards to his partner.

 To answer your question, yes I would always consider suspending the action because, in your original post, one player already acted and there was still action pending. If the hand were exposed before any players acted, then it would be a different situation. The obvious advantage after a player has wagered, is with the player seeing the exposed hand while facing a bet.

 I will give you one good example for my reasoning: Three players, final betting round, Player A bets, Player B tosses his hand to the muck and it flips over, (Ace of hearts Queen of spades). Player C now knows that the only hand that could beat his King high flush (he is holding K,J of hearts) was exposed by the exposed hand!

 

[JasperToo]

I don't quite understand stopping the action either.  You have mentioned that as an option on several other occasions and it just seems counter to most of TDA rules about these kind of decisions.  Even in those situations that a player accidently/intentionaly exposes his own hand when all in doesn't change the action to the next player. 

So in this situation it seems to me that the course of action is straightforward, expose the hand for Player A, let player B do his thing and player A can ggo from there.  And, of course, penalize C

As Tristan points out, you would be stopping and or backing up action all the time for accidently card exposures and that is just not what we do.

[Stuart Murray]

I have had a few situations like this, and I have not to date given the player who had less information a back up action as I feel it more detrimental than maintaining fairness.  Yes the other players gets to see them in an expedited fashion, I do however want to keep the action moving, so a simple penalty to the player who exposed the cards will usually suffice for me.

Regards
Stuart