Rule needed for premature discarding by players thinking they've won?

[MikeB]

In the recent Baumann v. Koroknai case, Koroknai discarded his hand prematurely, thinking he was the only remaining player and thus entitled to the pot. However, another live player was still in the hand.
See discussion thread here: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=783.0

Rule 45 "Non-Standard Folds" was not intended to apply to these situations. Should Rule 45 be amended to make this distinction?

Further, should a new rule or recommended procedure be adopted? Something to the effect that: a) dealer should attempt to prevent the cards hitting the muck; b) if cards are 100% identifiable they should remain in play; c) if not identifiable the surviving hand will win the pot less any bet by the discarding player that they have not called

Thoughts?

[Tristan]

I like that adjustment.

[K-Lo]

I like the additions as well.

I can see the following additional points being debated:

- if the player that prematurely discarded his hand wagered an amount that was a raise over an existing blind or bet, should he be liable for a min-raise rather than strictly the uncalled portion only?

- how do we address the concerns (if at all) of those people who think that players will purposely try to muck their hands after waiting some time while the opponent is considering a call?  i.e. if player A goes all-in and player B is thinking about his decision, and while tanking, A tries to shove his cards into the muck (perhaps despite the dealer trying to protect the muck)... should A be more heavily penalized in such situations?

[Nick C]

 I like the part about the dealer making an attempt to prevent the hand from being mucked. I am having a tough time with a player raising (all-in), mucking (unintentionally?... hmm!). No one has responded to the fact that Koroknai was the SB and his all-in may have knocked out the BB? I think rule #45 Non-Standard Folds can be amended, but I'm not sure it should offer as much protection for a player that: a.) went all-in and was unaware that he was already facing a raise. b.) possibly forcing another player from contention, (the big blind). c.) suspiciously not disclosing the contents of his hand (for lipstick cam). and d.) not protecting his own hand.

The more I look, the more I don't like the call, even though, at the time I would have made the same ruling.

If I were faced with the exact situation today, after all of our discussion, I would have awarded the 60K to Baumann (which is what happened), removed the uncalled raise amount from the tournament, and Koroknai would have been eliminated.

[Tristan]

- how do we address the concerns (if at all) of those people who think that players will purposely try to muck their hands after waiting some time while the opponent is considering a call?  i.e. if player A goes all-in and player B is thinking about his decision, and while tanking, A tries to shove his cards into the muck (perhaps despite the dealer trying to protect the muck)... should A be more heavily penalized in such situations?

Good point.  I do think a couple clauses should be added.

If the information provided by the dealers and players make it appear to be an honest mistake, the player will only lose the uncalled portion of the bet to the other player(s).

If the information provided by the dealers and players make it appear to be an angle shot, the player will lose the uncalled portion of the bet to the other player(s) AND will be subject to penalty (like removing the player's remaining chips from play).  It is the player's responsibility to protect their own hand and make their actions clear. 

The non-called chips will never be awarded to the opponent(s).