Heads up on flop. Player A announces "all-in". Player B says "hmmm" (or "oh" or "ah" just some sort of audible thinking reaction). Dealer mishears player B and says "player calls, turn 'em up". Player A auto-exposes cards, following dealer instruction, faster than Player B can say "woah, wait a minute, I didn't say call." Other players verify that Player B did not say call and mearly said "hmmm."
Now what? Player A's cards are exposed due to dealer misinformation. Can B still call the bet knowing what he's up against? Can the hand reasonably be played out still?
Weee...that's a tough one!
I think I'm about 60/40 in favor of pushing the all-in bet back and allowing the play to continue as if they were both all-in with no more action allowed. This protects both players, although one will obviously come out better. I like this because neither player will have their tournament life on the line because of a dealer error.
The other option is to allow B to call. There are a few angles that can be exploited if the players are under assumption that we would make a call like the one above and Player B did nothing wrong. You could argue that Player A did not hear the other player say 'call' either, and they should be sure of something without acting on just the dealer's direction. (Mistakes can and will be made)
I could support either decision.
For the others that will chime in, I want to add one more question. Would your call be the same on the river as it is on the flop? :o
This is a good one. It's unfortunate for Player A that the dealer called for both players to turn over their cards but, I would allow Player B to call or fold only. I would also suspend any further betting.
I would hope that this dealer error is so rare that you never have to face it again.
Tristan,
Taking another look back, I'm not disagreeing with your decision, I just prefer your second choice. As far as the same incident on the river...hmm, that might be a better time to push back the all-in and the best hand wins.
I prefer the second option as a default. This is a really terrible situation where even if you allow the last bet to be taken back, the player has already lost the chance to get the other player to fold -- he may not even want a showdown so he may be screwed anyway.
However, at the end of the day, I think you have to stick to the letter of the law here - A has to protect his or her own hand, and needs to be sure that his bet is in fact called before turning cards over - even in the face of dealer misinformation.
That being said, I wouldn't protest to applying the first option if the amount to be returned is significant.
I cannot remember where I saw the clip, but there is a video out there where the announcer (l think it may have been Linda J) said something that made the player reveal his hand prematurely - that was an interesting situation showing that the misinformation need not only come from a dealer! I would like to find that clip....
Ok, you two swayed me. I'm now 60/40 in favor of allowing the call. ;D
Quote from: K-Lo on June 03, 2013, 04:46:20 PM
I prefer the second option as a default. This is a really terrible situation where even if you allow the last bet to be taken back, the player has already lost the chance to get the other player to fold -- he may not even want a showdown so he may be screwed anyway.
However, at the end of the day, I think you have to stick to the letter of the law here - A has to protect his or her own hand, and needs to be sure that his bet is in fact called before turning cards over - even in the face of dealer misinformation.
That being said, I wouldn't protest to applying the first option if the amount to be returned is significant.
I cannot remember where I saw the clip, but there is a video out there where the announcer (l think it may have been Linda J) said something that made the player reveal his hand prematurely - that was an interesting situation showing that the misinformation need not only come from a dealer! I would like to find that clip....
I remember this, it was a WPT event IIRC, and the player stuck out a raise (possibly Scotty Nguyen perhaps?) and Linda announced "player calls" when the amount was a raise.
Do we not think that allowing the call in full really puts Player B at a significant advantage? He sees if he's beat or not, so calling or folding becomes a no-brainer in most cases.
Would you guys still agree if this action took place on the river?
Brian,
I gave my answer for the river...all betting suspended and the best hand wins!