Floor Call situation: Cards are scrambled at Showdown, will one card play ?

[Uniden32]

This happened the other night in one of our multi-table tournaments.

Day 1B of nine flight tournament.  Field of 166 was down to 18 players, playing down to 10 to bag up.

Pre-flop a player goes all in.  Both SB and BB call.  Players check through the flop, turn and river. 

All-in player tables hand, K-high on a 259TA board.

When the SB and BB go to table their hand, they toss their cards over at the same time intermingling them.  The dealer isn't sure who's cards are whose.  Other than the BB claiming the Ace is his, no one at the table can confirm.

The four cards from the SB and BB are 3,6,J,A

Of course, the All-in player wants both hands killed.  Our floor ruled that the since one of the cards beat the All-in player, and all hands would have to be tabled, he would be eliminated.

TD paused the tournament for 2 minutes as he called surveillance to confirm which blind the Ace came from.  Surveillance confirmed it was the BB's and the chips were pushed to that player.

Thoughts ?

[Dave Miller]

Of course the all-in wants the hands killed. He's grasping at straws, trying to avoid elimination. While we have to figure out WHO beat him, it's obvious he was beaten, and is eliminated.

The BB said the ace was his and the SB didn't argue? I might let it go at that and not call surveillance. But calling is ok too.

Of course, I might also give a warning to both blinds to properly table the cards.

[Nick C]

I have not worked in poker rooms that have the surveillance cameras that are used today. I probably would have divided the pot between the blinds. The all-in is eliminated. Of course, this would depend on the positive identity of the intermingled blinds.

How would you handle the same situation but, the intermingled cards did not contain an indication that the all-in were beaten?

[Dave Miller]

How would you handle the same situation but, the intermingled cards did not contain an indication that the all-in were beaten?

You mean if, using the above example's 259TA board, the four mingled cards were something like 78TT, with the all-in having an Ace?

I.E. Each blind could have had a pair of tens and lose to the all-in's Ace, or one of them could have had trip tens eliminating the all-in. And no surveillance?

Hmmm... Tough situation. And makes me re-think my initial response above.

TDA Rule 13A says "Proper tabling is..." The first word is 'Proper'. If the cards get intermingled, they weren't properly tabled.

Of course, one of the blind could say he tabled his hand, but the other blind threw his cards in causing the intermingling. That leads us to 13B.

TDA Rule 13B says "At showdown a player must protect his hand while waiting for it to be read". Clearly, neither blind protected his hand.

So, with those two rules, I'd rule both blind hands dead. And that goes for the original situation where you know one of the blinds would have knocked out the all-in, but don't know which.

What if the four cards were able to be identified and/or the blinds had no argument about whose cards were whose? I'd allow their claims to stand, unless any player objects. At that point, I's still kill the hands and invoke Rule 1.


And that leads me to a NEW question: If as I suggest, there was no argument, would the dealer be obligated to call the floor?

[Nick C]

Hello Dave,
Absolutely, call the floor. Even when the dealer knows the correct decision, it must come from the floor. I don't believe that players appreciate when the dealer makes a correction, or decision when some blame the dealer for the mistake.

[Uniden32]

How would you handle the same situation but, the intermingled cards did not contain an indication that the all-in were beaten?

1.  If no combination of the intermingled cards could be constructed to beat the all-in hand, I would award the pot to the all-in.

2.  If there were possible combinations that could be the all-in hand, I would again call surveillance:

   
• If surveillance was inconclusive, I would award the pot to the all-in.
• If surveillance was conclusive, I would award the pot to the winning hand.

3.  If only one card would be enough to beat the all-in (as in the original scenario), AND surveillance was inconclusive of who's card it was, I am leaning towards eliminating the all-in, and removing the chips (pot) from play.

[MikeB]

Den: Very interesting case.

IMO Rule 13 requires each hand at showdown to be fully tabled and identifiable as in "all cards", not just one card. If the cams cannot establish a full hand (i.e. they can only establish one card), I'd award the pot to the only fully identifiable hand: the all-in player in this case.

Let us say, for example, there were two players in this hand (the all-in and the BB), and at showdown the all-in fully tabled a Jack-Queen and the BB showed the ace and mucked his other card face down directly and irretrievably into the muck... of course we'd rule the BB's hand dead, not because we don't know the Ace beats whatever the all-in has, but because the BB didn't properly table.

Very important- basic- event management case, thanks again.

[Nick C]

Mike,

Even under the category of non-TDA rules it would be tough to kill that hand.

Showing a winning card and irretrievably mucking the other card only to have the pot awarded to the losing all-in player...hmm. I don't like that call at all.

 

[MikeB]

That's the point, the all-in player isn't "losing", the other hands are dead because the we don't know all downcards of either hand (Rule 13), and therefore they weren't tabled.

In addition to TDA 13, Robert's Rules Section 3 General Rules, Dead Hands para 3 states: "Cards thrown into another player's hand are dead, whether faceup or facedown".

Section 3 Irregularities, para. 2 states: "If you fail to protect your hand you will have no redress if it becomes fouled". TDA 60 has similar language: "A player must protect his hand at all times, including at showdown while waiting for the hand to be read. If... a hand is fouled and cannot be identified to 100% certainty, the player has no redress".  We don't have 100% certainty as to what the two hands were, despite checking the cameras.

From memory I think the original Las Vegas Hilton Book of Poker Rules did allow a player to win with one card in holdem if there was no reason to believe he did not at one time have a full hand, but I haven't seen a similar rule since.

[Nick C]

Mike,

I know that cash game rules are different from tournaments but this one does not sit well with me. I guess we can say that anything goes in some cash games. Having been a stud player back in Vegas in the early 80's, I can say I never agreed with the rules that you mentioned about "cards thrown into another players hand, whether face up or face down." I still don't get it, killing a players hand because his up cards are intermingled with discards from another player makes for suspicion of foul play, if you ask me.

You might be right about that rule where you can still win with less cards than the game requires but, I thought it (the rule) pertained to stud.

The more I read on this subject, the more I want to lobby for a "must show" on all called hands at showdown...tournament poker, of course.