Author Topic: showdown with forward motion fold  (Read 13410 times)


  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2013, 06:53:44 AM »
...Thereby before the dealer can actually mix them with the muck and while the cards are still 100% retrievable, if they are returned by:

A) The owner - the wind - the actual winner ---> The hand is alive!
B) The dealer - any other player (or crazy spectator etc) ---> The hand is dead!


So in your house rules where you have implemented this and made a distinction between who "returns" the cards, if the owner of the hand points to his cards that are lying in the middle of the table and says "wait... don't fold my hand, I think I may have had a club", and the dealer then pushes the cards back to the player, does that count as A or B?  If the cards are turned over by the dealer as he is returning the hand to the player, does that change the answer? 

I'm just curious to know how you actually apply this house rule.


Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2013, 08:09:51 AM »
In your example the hand is alive clearly! The dealer FOLLOW the owner request!
In the De Wolf case at EPT: the dealer returned by himself and by error a folded hand that became the potential winning hand but had been ruled dead by Thomas Kremser as the dealer has no ability to change the situation here.
We apply that and it works because OUR PLAYERS find it the most fair way.
But I'm ready to follow any CLEAR RULE by the TDA for sure!
I am for the union ... ;)


  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2013, 08:21:14 AM »
GG: You have summarized your position very well with the following:

1: Your house uses 14-A for live cards at showdown; AND

2: Your house follows the traditional RRoP formula for "asking to see a discarded hand" at showdown.

Two questions then....

First, RRoP allows "any player who was dealt in" to ask to see a discarded hand. The TDA does have a different position: Only a player who either tabled his cards at showdown, or still retains his cards (face up or down) at showdown can ask to see a discarded hand...

What is your position on WHO can ask to see a hand?

Second: under what conditions is asking to see a hand an inalienable (guaranteed always) right to see the cards, and under what conditions is asking to see a hand a privilege that the house can permit or deny at TD discretion? At Summit VI we couldn't quite reach agreement on this either so it was left to Summit VII.


« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 08:25:33 AM by MikeB »

Guillaume Gleize

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
Re: showdown with forward motion fold
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2013, 01:12:54 PM »
Hello Mike,

First at all: To receive a question from the main « secret supervisor » of the TDA rules is always an honor … ;)

OK so let’s try to answer correctly.

You said somewhere that sometime our heart does not go in the same direction than our brain. That’s the point here about the spirit of this rule. I’m 51 and played five card draw in backrooms during the 80’s and 90’s and some “oldies but goodies” rules that proved to be working on the long range are still in my heart. On the other hand I’m a professional and I must absolutely stick with the world new rules and habits used today around the world by the major tournaments … That’s my brain.

So about your two questions:

1)   WHO? Before the summit we used to allow ANY PLAYER WHO WAS DEALT IN to ask to see a discarded hand … but you are right: This point and the way our habit used to look generous means nothing without the second question: WHY & WHEN?
2)   Here is the spirit. For us, and that’s where our “old fashion heart” appears: THE RIGHT TO MUCK AND HIDE A HAND AT SHOWDOWN IS SACRED. I mean the only reason someone could ask to see a discard hand at showdown is an official AND ANNOUNCED suspicion of collusion or irregular hand! That’s why we allowed so many players to do it (the full table): Because it was so serious and rare that it wouldn’t multiply the cases. For sure we wouldn’t have made a point 1) rule that allow the full table if point 2) accepted simple curiosity or an official right to see the cards because you just paid. When called at a table for this kind of case (99% of the time by someone who didn’t suspect collusion but simply didn’t know the rule and its spirit): We used to explain gently to the caller the “gravity” of his inquiry and 99% of the time he just cancelled his demand with a smile. If the caller was to insist in the suspicion (very rare cases), the TD used to officially ask to see the hand. We for sure didn’t allow that twice to the same player during the tournament but we kept on surveying the spirit of the table.

Now we were to follow the NEW TDA RULE but maybe not in the same spirit as the one intended by the TDA: For us this new rule limits much more the possible abuse of this demand and it’s a good point. If the intended spirit of this TDA new rule was to allow this reduced number of player to see automatically any called hand … We surely misunderstood it!

OK now if a general new spirit of the showdown in the future was to oblige everybody at showdown to table their hands (like when all-in today), we would follow it as “unionists” and it would sure have 3 advantages:
1)   Hyper simplification of all those showdown situations
2)   Permanent control of any possible collusion
3)   Interesting strategy changes, obliging the players (and mostly the good ones) to permanently “change gears” because their moves would appear clearly to anybody (like when the camera tables appeared in the start of the century).

… But personally I wouldn’t like it because we would lose a nice part of the poker mystery and hidden strategy. But I’m maybe reacting like an old guy … ;)  

« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 01:25:30 PM by Guillaume Gleize »