Asking to See a Hand: "Show me that hand"... What rules apply?

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

About the #18 TDA rule: It explains who can't ask to see a hand anymore but it doesn't explain if the rest can OBLIGE the opponent to show the hand!

Let's take the example including the order of showdown rule (wich most of my pro players hate):

Player A is playing before player B at the table (A is sitting at the right of B): During all the streets player A check-call the bets of players B ... even at the river - At showdown player A must show first (this is what my pros hate as a rule) - Then imagine player B wanna muck ---> DOES PLAYER A CAN OBLIGE PLAYER B TO SHOW HIS HAND?

In my house rule: NO! (We follow here a "long time traditionnal overall poker rule").

But some players who hate the showdown order rule would like to missread this #18 rule to oblige everybody with cards to show them if asked by someone else with live cards. I refuse.

So there is what I apply ... And what I would dream to apply:

What I apply:
1) TDA Showdown order #16
2) If everybody muck, the last live hand wins the pot and is not obliged to show.
3) The ONLY reason to ask to see a hand at showdown is a suspicion of COLLUSION or irregular hand - It must be CLEARLY announced this way - ANY PLAYER at the table can call the floor for it but it may be EXCEPTIONNAL and any abuse may be penalized! (Believe me: nobody here never abused of that terrible right).

What I would dream to apply:
1) Last aggressive player at ANY round must show first
2) Same
3) Same

TY for your advices.
GG



 

[Nick C]

Hello Guillaume,

 So...what you object to is the player that is the aggressor on earlier rounds (Player B in your example) not showing at the showdown when the final round is checked by Player A, and Player B also checks...correct? There are house rules that support your tradition of the last aggressor, even on a prior "street' or betting round.

 Even though you have a problem with TDA #18. You might want to ask Mike Bishop or David Lamb if changing your house rule (slightly) would be acceptable and keep you in compliance with the TDA rules. I'm not quite clear on whether you oppose; not allowing a player without cards the right to ask to see a hand, unless suspecting collusion. Is that right? The current rules say nothing about suspicion of collusion.

 

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello Nick,

I think there is many confusion and it may be my fault. Sorry for my poor English!

OK: I respect and follow the rule #16 showdown order (even if I regret some old tradition) ... Anyway this was not the MAIN point.

The main point is:

IF WE ARE BOTH AT THE SHOWDOWN (you & me)
---> RULE #16 SAYS I MUST SHOW FIRST (for example)
---> OK I SHOW FIRST ---> THEN YOU WANNA MUCK (for example)
---> CAN I ASK TO SEE YOUR HAND BECAUSE UNDER RULE #18 MY HAND IS ALIVE AND TABLED?

 

[Nick C]

If you show first and the only opposing player wants to muck...let him muck. If you ask to see his hand he might have you beat.

 To give you a direct answer I would say yes, you may ask but it's up to the floor to decide whether you get to see your opponents hand or not. This could depend entirely on house rules. I suggest that you make a set of rules and stick to them. There are no firm rules set by the TDA that say you must table all hands except when a player is all-in.

[MikeB]

Hello,

About the #18 TDA rule: It explains who can't ask to see a hand anymore but it doesn't explain if the rest can OBLIGE the opponent to show the hand!

 GG: It's left to the house rule for the time being. Some venues require ALL requested hands to be shown every time (an irrevocable right), some (like you) require only if collusion suspected, some will allow it until it becomes a nuisance (a revocable "privilege")... the Association discussed this issue at great length at the 2013 Summit and we were not able to arrive at a super-majority consensus. It's best to leave it to house policy for the time being rather than trying to force everyone to use a common rule that a significant number don't feel comfortable with. There is one exception to this that EVERYONE (or nearly everyone) at TDA 2013 agreed to: if there is aggressive action on the final street, all players calling the last aggressor have the inalienable right to see the hand they called (providing they either retain their cards or table them before mucking). FWIW, the reason this consensus item was not written into the 2013 rules is that it could leave the impression that is the only circumstance where a player can be compelled to table cards.

Let's take the example including the order of showdown rule (wich most of my pro players hate):

Player A is playing before player B at the table (A is sitting at the right of B): During all the streets player A check-call the bets of players B ... even at the river - At showdown player A must show first (this is what my pros hate as a rule) -

If I read your example correctly, B must show first because B was the last aggressive actor, yes? A just called B's aggressive action.... Rule 16 "the last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first..."

Then imagine player B wanna muck ---> DOES PLAYER A CAN OBLIGE PLAYER B TO SHOW HIS HAND?

 Okay, so in an order of show B would be the first player to show because he took the last aggressive action on the final street (Rule 16 as above). But B doesn't want to show, he wants to muck face down and forfeit the pot to A, yes? So the last part of Rule 16 applies: "except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, the player may elect to muck face down".... SO, unless your house rules require the hand to be shown, he can muck face down.

HOWEVER, now A wants to ask to see B's hand... this is where it gets a bit tricky... there are several questions here: 1) Can A force (oblige) B to show and 2) is B's hand live...

1) In your example, B was an aggressive bettor on the final street... A called B's hand, i.e. "A paid to see B's hand".  Even though this language didn't find it's way into the TDA rules, from the discussion at the 2013 Summit which you were there, I'd say 99.9% of the membership believes that A has a right to see the hand he called.  NOW, lets say it was check-check on the final street, then that's different. And then it's up to house rules as to whether B has to show or not.

2) Is B's hand live? I would say it definitely is in your example because: first, A is the last surviving player (the presumed winner), and since the presumed winner asked to see the hand, per the "old school" camp (Roberts Rules), the hand is live.  But also the "new school" that "all cards tabled at showdown are live regardless of how they got tabled" would also rule it live....

In my house rule: NO! (We follow here a "long time traditionnal overall poker rule").

 I think A has a good argument that he paid to see B's hand. If B tries and check-muck and A asks to see the hand, the clear majority at 2013 TDA Summit would require him to show, and that is traditional poker IMO.  On the other hand, if it were check-check then it's up to your house rule as discussed above.

Note, you say your pro players hate to have to show, but they probably hate it even more when they call the last aggressor and aren't given the right to see the hand they called !!

But some players who hate the showdown order rule would like to missread this #18 rule to oblige everybody with cards to show them if asked by someone else with live cards. I refuse.

You're right... "any rights or privileges" are the rights and privileges that you grant under your house rules. If you refuse, then that's the house rule on asking to see a hand... and under your house rule as you describe, you only grant the request IF you suspect collusion.

So there is what I apply ... And what I would dream to apply:

What I apply:
1) TDA Showdown order #16
2) If everybody muck, the last live hand wins the pot and is not obliged to show. [FINE if that's your house rule, note that some houses DO REQUIRE "All winning hands to be shown", that's not a requirement of the TDA but the TDA does recognize the house right in the last sentence of Rule 16]
3) The ONLY reason to ask to see a hand at showdown is a suspicion of COLLUSION or irregular hand - It must be CLEARLY announced this way - ANY PLAYER at the table can call the floor for it but it may be EXCEPTIONNAL and any abuse may be penalized! (Believe me: nobody here never abused of that terrible right). [Again, that's your house rule and is clearly permitted under the latitude of TDA at this time. I left the 2013 Summit thinking that this will be one we will be debating for awhile, maybe a long while.]

What I would dream to apply:
1) Last aggressive player at ANY round must show first
2) Same
3) Same

TY for your advices.
GG

 Thanks for the great post G! Please LMK if I misunderstood or didn't address any of your original questions.

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello Mike.

Thanks for the time spent to answer my "tricky" question.
Yes I was there at 2013 summit and loved it! I also discovered that my english was terrible ... Mostly to UNDERSTAND the discussions with the different accents LOL.
That's also why some of my questions had been allready discussed there ... Wich discussions I missed.

 

OK Your answers are clear and help me before a big event I'll manage (with the reputation of applying the professional-strange-fareaway-international-beautifull-TDA RULES)!

About my question: I made a mistake but your overall answer did clear it!
I wanted indeed to say "check-check" in the last round.

Anyway. So you had been clear:

1) if A (out of position) check-call player B during the 3 first streets and both player check the river: A must show first and if B wanna muck: A can't oblige him to show.  
This is the what I was calling the "long time tradition" and I still apply it. The point is that in the old time the rule #16 was different (B should have show first as last aggressor in previous round) so the Rule #18 was less anoying for the courageous hero caller out of position ... ! Anyway I wanna follow the TDA (to stay with the majority as a unionist I am).

2) But if A check-call a last bet from B at the river: B must show first but if B wanna muck, A can oblige him to show right? What about the dealers? Do you want us to ask them to stop any muck from B to give time to player A for the request or do you want them to actually mix the mucked hand from B in the muck at normal speed (thus obliging A to ask faster)?

Anyway: Interesting! I'll do my best to apply it but I promise nothing in the next month: To change long time habits is a fine work!

Last point: I didn't know the "New shool" tabled hand all alive however they were tabled !!! (But I love it)!

For me they were ALIVE if tabled:

- By the actual winner or by the dealer on the request of the actual winner (taking then the risk to finally loose)
- By the owner himself (changing is mind and tabling them)
- By the "wind" (while behing thrown for example)

But they were DEAD if tabled:

- By the dealer himself with no request from the actual winner (Rolland de Wolf Case: dead hand)
- By any other player than the actual winner
- By any other person (crazy spectator ... yes it happened!)

The spirit of this old rule reflect the old time spirit: The players must stay ALERT to win a pot with a winning hand ... No oustside element may help them change the situation if they actually MUCKED. LOL

For sure the "new school" is more easy and makes the best hand wins but ... I'll have to protect PHYSICALY (with the help of the bouncers) the player out of the hand returning by curiosity a mucked hand and making it winning the pot ... WOAWWW! OK do you penalize him by the way?

GG

[MikeB]

Anyway. So you had been clear:

1) if A (out of position) check-call player B during the 3 first streets and both player check the river: A must show first and if B wanna muck: A can't oblige him to show.  

The TDA rules leave this to house policy. I'm resisting identifying specific very large tournaments.... but Venue 1 requires every requested hand (A's hand in this case) to be shown every time; Venue 2 will show "most of the time", as long as it doesn't become a nuisance; Venue 3 (your house) will inspect / table A's hand only if collusion is suspected, etc.... Hence TDA rule 16, last sentence: "Except where house policy requires a hand to be tabled during the order of show, a player may elect to muck his hand face down."

2) But if A check-call a last bet from B at the river: B must show first but if B wanna muck, A can oblige him to show right?

Yes, because as Jack Effel summarized, speaking for a virtually unanimous position of the membership: "... that's information that A paid for..." Just remember that it's not specifically written into the TDA rules because if it was, it could leave the impression that's the ONLY time the hand must be shown (or even may be shown), and that's not the case, there can be other times according to each house policy.

What about the dealers? Do you want us to ask them to stop any muck from B to give time to player A for the request or do you want them to actually mix the mucked hand from B in the muck at normal speed (thus obliging A to ask faster)?

I would say the latter... normal speed, otherwise you risk having the dealer play a direct role in tabling of cards, and A will ask you to dig the cards out of the muck, etc..... if A wants to see the hand he called, he needs to be paying attention and speak up at the showdown before it's mucked. I think the better policy is a simple "blanket instruction" to dealers on requests-to-see: In a non-all-in showdown, if a player mucks a hand face down without tabling it, pull it in at normal speed, if any player asks to see it before it's buried in the muck, keep it face down and call the floor.

THEN you have the further question of when that hand is live and when it isn't. With just 2 players it's always live, but what if you have 3 players to the showdown (A and B who both called C's river bet). A and B table, A's hand is stronger, and B asks to see C's hand. When is C's hand live in this situation, when is it dead? There are two major schools of thought: 1) the traditionalist RRoP school, if the hand is still in C's possession at time of request, it's live, otherwise if discarded then B requests it's dead because B is the tabled loser. It would only be live if A had requested here.  2) the "new school" says C's hand is always live... "all hands tabled at showdown for whatever reason are live".  

Curious... which school are you in ? See next discussion >

Last point: I didn't know the "New school" tabled hand all alive however they were tabled !!! (But I love it)!

For me they were ALIVE if tabled:

- By the actual winner or by the dealer on the request of the actual winner (taking then the risk to finally loose)
- By the owner himself (changing is mind and tabling them)
- By the "wind" (while behing thrown for example)

But they were DEAD if tabled:

- By the dealer himself with no request from the actual winner (Rolland de Wolf Case: dead hand)
- By any other player than the actual winner
- By any other person (crazy spectator ... yes it happened!)

The spirit of this old rule reflect the old time spirit: The players must stay ALERT to win a pot with a winning hand ... No outside element may help them change the situation if they actually MUCKED. LOL

For sure the "new school" is more easy and makes the best hand wins but ... I'll have to protect PHYSICALY (with the help of the bouncers) the player out of the hand returning by curiosity a mucked hand and making it winning the pot ... WOAWWW! OK do you penalize him by the way?

GG

So from the above, you like the simplicity of the new school, but your rule is basically 100% old school RRoP as far as I can see. Personally I think the membership is around 50-50 on this one, but I suspect a poll of players would favor the old school.  In your example, the uninvolved player should definitely be penalized but in the new school the hand would be live IMO. I support the old school but try to remain neutral so as to advance the discussion.

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY so much Mike!

1) In the case of river check-check: I'll stick to our usual house rule (can't oblige to show) ... Untill some day any TDA summit big majority vote change it.

2) In the case of river check-call: I will now follow you all (can oblige to show) ... With your instructions to the dealer. (99% do it you said? ... Well OK!)

3) About the tabled hand alive: I'll stick to our house rule (depend of how it is tabled) ... Untill some day any TDA summit big majority vote change it.

Regards,
GG

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

  Just to help clear this up. check, check... is the same as bet, call. The first to act is the aggressor. Player A checks and Player B checks...Player A shows first. Player A bets and Player B calls...Player A shows first. Player A bets and Player B raises...if Player A calls, Player B shows first.

 I believe the confusion comes from the question that's been debated forever regarding; who has the right to see another players hand...and when?

 Any player can ask but, who will be allowed to see the hand in question?

 Also, what authority will  determine who has that right?

I suggest you establish your own set of rules and be firm. Based on Mike's thorough explanation, you can see that there is a wide range of opinions on this subject. The only time we have no questions is when a player is all-in. All cards must be tabled. Beyond that, I believe you can easily make a set of house rules that both you and your player's will understand, and learn to accept. The problems usually arise when there are inconsistencies by the floor. I also suggest: dealers should not make any final decision, they must call the floor.
 

[MikeB]

1) In the case of river check-check: I'll stick to our usual house rule (can't oblige to show) ...

Yes, your house rule is: "can't oblige to show, it's strictly up to TDs discretion". Optionally you could specify: "... only in the best interest of the game, such as suspicion of collusion", or just leave that unstated.

2) In the case of river check-call: I will now follow you all (can oblige to show) ...

Yes, must be shown (on request, as long as the requesting caller has tabled or retains his cards at time of request per TDA Rule 18).

3) About the tabled hand alive: I'll stick to our house rule (depend of how it is tabled) ...

You might use RRoP (http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm) as the basis of your house rule, it's classic "old school" on the subject: Section 3-General Poker Rules, The Showdown, Para. 5: Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

Note that to be TDA compliant for tournaments this needs to be tweaked slightly to reflect TDA Rule 18: "Any player in the showdown may request to see any hand that was eligible to participate in the showdown provided the requesting player has tabled or is still in possession of his or her cards. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been discarded without tabling at showdown, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see the discarded hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins."

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello Mike,

About the point #2 (that will be a big change in my rules).

Because it's gonna be new, I think most of the players won't use it (the callers will let the river last bettors muck their called hands) just to be "polite" ... To respect a local "etiquette". But some players will use it (some callers will ask to see the river last bettor called hand): I will protect them. I mean I will explain that they will be allowed to do it repeatedly and naturaly as it's an official new rule! I will clearly explain that it's not to be confused with the request to see a hand for collusion or irregular hand suspicion! Witch (in our house rules) can be asked by ANY PLAYER AT THE TABLE but only on EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCIES (so not repeatedly).

 

[MikeB]

G: Please keep us posted as to how this works for you.