Rules #12 #13 #65 Italian Field - easy but hard (?l)

[Vincenzo Morabito]

Hello everybody, nice to see all of you again.
Today in a Italian's duscussion social group I have realized how much confusion still have Players and Dealers as well in my country about an easy topic like the showdown and the muck.

I am going to quote the original question translated by Italian ( I posted the Italian original under the tda rules section as well)

We are at one of the €200 Flight day1 Mini Irish Opens. In one spot I'm at UTG with a lady who occupies SB, so I'm in position and it comes to the river. She Bets, I call because I have a set. The lady announces "two pair", showing the cards, I announce "not enough" and turn over the set. The Dealer takes the lady's cards and mucks them without looking at them (on the board there are 3 suited cards and two no-suited cards that make up the lady's two pair). One player says that the lady had the flush's cards and she would have won, two others players support him. I didn't see it because I was focused on my set. They call the floor who decides to assign the pot to the lady..."by trust" of the testimony of the three, without putting their hand to the muck. I ask to check the muck but floor refuses. Being the loser of the situation, I insist but apparently my opinion doesn't count. Floor claims he can't put his hand in the muck because if the lady's flush cards weren't there it would be a problem. I honestly don't see the problem, because at this point he could have turned the entire deck of the remaining undistributed cards instead of the muck and if one of the two flush cards that make up the lady's two pair had appeared, the pot would have automatically gone to me. 18 years of poker...I missed this!"

Summarized:
- River Villain shows and declare "two pairs"
- Hero shows 3 of a kind aces
- Dealer mucks the villain's card and move the pot to hero
- 4 Players speak up about a mistake coz Villain has Flush, before the new hand stars
- Floor asks players and confirms and gives the pot to Villain
- hero asks to check the muck
- Floor denies the request
- no camera available

In my opinion all is easy to manage. And the Floor has made the right decision for #2 #12 #13

A lot of people are confusing this with the #65 for muck in a dead hand never showed, totally ignoring the topic's dinamic of a 100% correct showdown procedure.


The reason of this post it's primarly to mark what I am seeing like a great lack in the common ruling knowdlege  among players and even dealers. (An entire community very confused about that)

Thank you for your contribiute!

[Dave Miller]

I think Rule 65 covered it entirely.

When a player tables their hand and declares incorrectly, they are failing to adequately protect their hand.

Similarly, when a player tables their hand silently, they leave themselves open to having the hand read incorrectly.

Dealers make mistakes too. In this particular case, the incorrect announcement of two pair encouraged the dealer to make a mistake.

Cards speak is a concept designed to avoid such dealer mistakes. It is the responsibility of other players to call attention to such mistakes.

HOWEVER, do cards still speak once in the muck? Only if identifiable and retrievable.

The floor's statement of not wanting to attempt to retrieve the cards because it "might create a problem" is contrary to Rule 65 part B. I mean, that's exactly WHY you want to attempt to retrieve them.

If cards are retrieved, if they don't form two pair, then obviously, the correct were not identifiable or retrievable. If they ARE two pair but not a flush, then the people who spoke up were wrong, or, again, not correctly identified.

In either case, if the cards aren't two pair with a flush, then it's back to Rule 65 part A, where the player didn't protect their hand.

[Vincenzo Morabito]

Thank you for the answer Dave, as always very meaningful, but what decision would you make? The #65, in my view, particularly refers to the case where cards cannot be retrieved when fully shuffled in the muck and never shown face up both. It's the concept of retrievability that creates confusion among players. In the case at hand, where I cannot have certainty through camera check, and where I assess that information provided to me by the players is insufficient or even conflicting, in front of a proper showdown, I would go and verify by drawing from all the Mucked cards  "possibly"(this is the delicate and crucial step imo) , giving the pot to the effective winner.

[Dave Miller]

I don’t know if either of your suggestions of going through the muck, or going through the stub, would have proven anything. Regardless, there’s no rule support that kind of investigation.

If I was the floor person, I would ask the player and dealer, which two cards was the hand that was mucked. Only once the player agrees that the two cards pulled out are the cards from their hand would I then turn them over. If they were actually two pair with a flush, I’d award that player the pot. Otherwise, sorry.

In your situation, I would insist on a written incident report and take it to Gaming Control. Without that report, it might still be possible to go to Gaming Control, but you’ve got less to work with. Either way, I don’t really know what the result would be but at least you would’ve fought your fight.

[Vincenzo Morabito]

All Clear.
In the end I would like to put again a big mark on that:
-the big difference between an investigation when the card are tabled, and not. I think it's peacefull but still not clear for an amateur field (and sometime even some pro)

Here a supporting quote of Nick C

https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1388.msg12120#msg12120

Only winning hands that were properly tabled and mucked in error, can be retrieved from the muck. Why do we insist on telling players their discarded hands can be retrieved? Cards hit the "muck" face down, they're dead! Any player that discards his hand, face down deserves to lose if he tossed a winner. Let's stop trying to complicate a simple rule. If you toss your hand, it's dead.

[Nick C]

Without the Lady's cards being properly tabled, there is no way the pot should be awarded to her, in my opinion.

If her hand were properly exposed, face up for all to see, that is a different situation. The rules clearly state that a winning hand can not be killed provided the player is in for all bets and the hand was properly tabled but mistakenly mucked by the dealer.

Did the woman know she had a flush? Aparently not, otherwise she would have announced a flush instead of saying, "Two pair."

The dealer also is not completely at fault. The dealer will assist the players in reading the proper hand, but, the ultimate responsibility is with the player to protect their hand before it hits the muck.

I do agree that you should NEVER go into the muck in poker. Muck cards are dead, and when properly mucked, they are mixed into the muck in such a fashion that it can not be determined who originally possess which cards.

Mucked cards in black jack are stacked in order, so each hand can be examined, but in poker, they are not!

So, if the information you gave was accurate, in my opinion, the mucked hand had to be properly tabled in order to award her the pot.

If the decision were based on players, looking into her hand before she mucked them, without putting them face up on the table.

The pot should have been yours.

I hope I've explained your situation so it can help you in the future.
Modify message

[Dave Miller]

… The lady announces "two pair", showing the cards, I announce "not enough" and turn over the set. The Dealer takes the lady's cards and mucks them without looking at them …

Without the Lady's cards being properly tabled, there is no way the pot should be awarded to her, in my opinion.
If her hand were properly exposed, face up for all to see, that is a different situation. …

Hmmm…

When I read it, I interpreted it as if the cards WERE properly exposed and tabled, but Nick seems to think that wasn’t the case - that maybe the lady merely held them up for her neighbors to see and that she dropped them face down, or the dealer took them out of her hand.

Which is it? If Nick is right, then I retract everything I said.

Of course if the dealer took them out of her hand, that’s a whole other set of problems.

[Nick C]

Hello, Dave

 It always seems that there are things that occur that we are not certain of. We know, if all of the rules are followed, and all of the dealers correct a mistake before it happens, life would be much more simple.

When I read about a situation like the one we are discussing, I try to figure out why the error occurred. Like you said, if the cards were properly tabled, I don't believe there would be any argument.

Have a nice weekend.