If opponent mucks at showdown, must winning hand be shown?. Re: TDA vs WSOP

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

Simple situation:

NLH tournament and 2 players at the river on a big pot:
Both players check at the river (they still have chips in front of them).
Player A (first to play) clearly folds (he says "I fold") throwing his cards faces down in the middle. So the dealer muck it.
Player B (last with cards) wins the pot (no one contest this) but ask if he can fold his cards faces down ... player A says "no: I have to see it!"

WSOP: he has to show it! (right?)
TDA: he is not obliged to show it! (right?)

Personnaly I prefer the second solution ... much more logical:
We are not speaking here of 2 players pretending to the pot (wich need other rules: player A out of position must show first and player B must show his own hand if he pretend to win the pot etc ...) ... neither we speak of 2 players all-in (both must show their hand etc ...) ... neither we speak of someone else at the table asking to see the hands to check if there is any collusion between the 2 last players (Wich can be exceptionaly applied etc ...). We speak here of the LAST PLAYER WITH CARDS ASKED TO SHOW IT BY THE LAST PLAYER TO FOLD! ... Why should he show it? Curiosity will never be "the best interest of the game" to me.

Exemple here: http://www.thehendonmob.com/tournament_director4/last_man_standing_must_show_rule

PS: Please don't tell me I have to re-write this part of my rules!



With best regards,
GG

[Stuart Murray]

GG,

Many Card-rooms do carry the must show rule, it is primarily used as a deterrany against collusion in the form of chip-dumping.

You are correct, the TDA has no formalised rule that requires 'the last man standing' to show his cards on the river, which is the way I prefer it TBA, The last man must show rule is IMO something that can be abused by arrogant players who know it all and demand to see players whole cards for information, but then it does have it's uses!

Regards
Stuart

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

  Robert's Rules covers this situation. The first player to show their hand tosses it face down in the direction of the muck. The hand is dead, unless the other player asks to see it, then it is live. The normal action should be; The surrendered hand is dead and the dealer should kill it by touching it to the muck. The dealer should then insist that the other player show his hand before he is awarded the pot. I don't think the TDA actually covers this situation, but as far as I know there is nothing wrong with surrendering your hand as long as all of the betting is complete and it is your turn to showdown your cards. The player might have been looking for a card to hit a straight or a flush and missed, so he surrendered his cards with no chance to win. Part of Robert's Rules:
THE SHOWDOWN....... 8.) A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, THE OTHER PLAYERS DO NOT LOSE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE HAND BE SHOWN IF HE DOES SO.
  As far as the winner, not wanting to show his hand, the same rule should apply. Any player at the table has a right to see a called hand.  A round of betting that is complete without a wager (checked around) is still a called hand.

Nick C

[MikeB]

GG: I'm going by memory of the 2009 Summit. The subject of check-fold and bet-fold on the river/showdown came up. From memory the position of the TDA membership was that in the event, for example, that there are two players to the showdown (neither all-in), both either checking or betting/calling, should one elect to immediately discard his hand at showdown, it is inappropriate for the dealer to turn the unexposed mucked hand face up. The dealer should honor the wish of the mucking player and muck the hand. Under these circumstances the remaining player was not obligated to show the hand. But this has not been formalized as of yet, and I also do not see any formal rule on the subject in the WSOP rules:
http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/2010/2010-WSOP-Rules.pdf

I also recall that this was actually a discussion that we undertook persuant to an example you had submitted a couple years ago... do you recall the example ? It was something similar to the above.

Perhaps, again, you've identified a rules issue that should be reviewed at the next Summit !

[chet]

I have looked at the 2010 WSOP Tournament Rules and found NOTHING that addresses the situation as Mike B indicated.  I have also looked at the 2010 WSOP Live Action Rules and the only thing I found is Rule 135 that says:  "To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards face up on the table."

I supposed one could stretch this to include the example in this post, but I would not agree with it.  My opinion is that at the showdown if one or more players, in turn, muck their cards face down and there is only one player left with live cards, the pot is awarded to the player with live cards.  If one or more players muck out of turn, that complicates things a bit, but I believe my ruling would be the same.  This is a situation, in my opinion, where the dealer should intercept the attempt to muck by the out of turn player and, in effect, FORCE the player to act in turn.

Hope this helps!!

[Guillaume Gleize]

Thanks for your help!

Yes I see I allready asked for it a long time ago (sorry) ... and I see that this point isn't really clarified.

Détail: fighting against collusion is OK for me be because ANOTHER player at the table can ask to see the hand (without abusing of this right) ... BUT NOT THE OPPONENT: THIS CAN'T BE A COLLUSION CHECK because player A can't say: "Hey: I want to see player B's hand in case we both are working together !?!?! (LOOOL)! This is ONLY CURIOSITY!

Anyway ... because I have to choose my rules BEFORE I manage tournaments (I do not manage cash-games): I will stick to my actual rule (don't have to show) ... until the TDA (wich is my favorite and official reference used when talking to my players) officialy takes a clear position on this subject and ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE: Have to show it - or - Don't have to show it!

If the TDA choose officially to oblige to show the hand here: I promise I will be a "good soldier" and will (saddly but clearly) follow the line: Have to show it now!  

Not written ... Not forbidden: so right now you don't have to show it!

Best regards!
GG

[Martin L. Waller]

Good afternoon fellows,
I remember seeing this in a hand between Deeb and Men and it started a lot of conversation among the dealers.
Deeb was in the first position.
The action was the same as this example.
They both checked on the Turn and the river.
At the Showdown Men mucked his cards but asked to see Deeb's.
Deeb had to show.
If it had been reversed Men would not have to show since he was in second position.

Speaking of the WSOP, last year the dealers were instructed to show all winning hands.
But, I can assure you that this rule wasn't followed to the letter.
If the hand didn't have to be shown or wasn't asked to be turned it wasn't.
The dealers made that decision.
Good luck,
Martin

[Christine]

I have a question regarding a situation that happened in one of our daily tournaments.
All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were) Can you please help me? Did i make the right decision?

[MaxH]

In situations such as this I explain that although a player has the right to see a hand it cannot be for information purposes; the right should not be abused because the rule only exists because collusion is suspected. I then ask if the player still wants to see the hand on that basis.
If the answer is 'yes' then I allow the hand to be shown but (assuming everything is above board on that hand) would rule against the player if they asked again.
Explaining that it is akin to accusing a player of cheating is, generally, enough to deter all but the most thick skinned players.
Best,

[Nick C]

MaxH,

I have to disagree with you when you say that a player can not see a called hand for information purposes. I also don't agree that the rule only exists because collusion is suspected. You agree that any player at the table has a right to see a called hand. Why do you think it is for reasons related to collusion? Those are the rules. You might want to know why a player raised pre flop, or if you put him on a certain hand and you have an interest in knowing if you were correct, or any other reason. I've had experience with players that abuse the rule, and I think this is when you can take the priviledge away; Player A looses his third pot to Player B when he outdraws him on the river. Player B requests to see what Player A had in his hand. In anger, Player A tosses his cards into the muck before anyone has a chance to see them and says: "Dealer, every time Player B has a called hand, I want to see his cards." This is what I would define as abusing the rule. I see nothing wrong with asking to see a players called hand.

[MaxH]

I don't think this is a called hand because no one has bet.
Best,

[Dave_The_Maori]

All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were) 

What would happen if Player A's hand was realed to be the winner and their excuse was that they didn't realise what they truely had?

[Nick C]

 MaxH, you said no player bet, but Christine said "Player A bet and Player B called."  After the last betting round, if all players have checked, I believe that the rule for showing a called hand at a players request is allowed. A checked hand is still a called hand.

Dave and Christine,
The procedure for showing a called hand, when the player requesting to see the hand is not involved in the final betting round is as follows;
The dealer will touch the folded hand to the muck (killing the hand), award the pot to the winner and then turn the mucked hand over. Touching the hand to the muck is merely a formality, the surrendered hand is dead. However, if the would be winner of the hand requests to see the hand, it is live.

Christine's example: Player A Bets, Player B Calls. Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. Then a player not in the hand asks to see the hand. I think Christine was correct in her ruling that the hand should be revealed, however the above procedure needs to be followed so if the hand is a winning hand, they will NOT be awarded the pot. If Player A Bets and Player B calls and Player A mucks his hand, Player B could lose the pot if he asks to see the mucked hand.

[MikeB]

All community cards are out.
Player A: Bets
Player B: Calls
Player B immediately shows his hand and Player A mucks his hand. A player not in the hand asks to see player A`s hand. I ruled that the hand must be shown even if the cards were in the mucked pile (the dealer still knew which cards they were)  

What would happen if Player A's hand was realed to be the winner and their excuse was that they didn't realise what they truely had?

Hi Dave, it would depend on a couple things: 1) You say the cards are in the muck, this complicates it... how sure are we that those are A's cards?? If the answer is 99.99%, then A can't win, we have to be 100% sure when doing a muck retrieval, but more importantly 2) it depends on who asked to see the cards. Since he voluntarily mucked face down at showdown AND the dealer killed the cards they cannot be voluntarily retrieved by A (IMO)... the only player who can "re-activate" player A's hand is the winner, Player B. If player B asks to see the cards, and they actually beat B's hand, then the pot should be awarded to A. If any other person asks to see A's cards, they are dead, and are revealed only as a privledge not to be abused...B still wins the pot. Thanks alot for the interesting example.

[MaxH]

Nick,
You are getting the posts confused.
The Christine post is not the post I am commenting on.
Also, a checked hand is not a called hand: it's a checked hand.