Which player must show their cards first?

[Brian Vickers]

Normally when I am called to a table and players ask me "who has to show first?" my answer is "whoever wants to win the pot" and I walk away.

That being said, let me present a few scenarios and I would like to know how your house handles the issue when players are not opening their hands voluntarily and an order of show is enforced.  The first couple will be the basics, while the second two will change it up slightly.  In all cases Player A is the under the gun player on that street, clockwise of the button and B and/or C are clockwise of him.

A) On the river, Player A checks, Player B bets, Player A calls.  Who must show first?

B) On the river Player A checks, Player B checks.  Who must show first?

C) On the turn, Player A checks, Player B goes all-in, Player A calls.  The river is dealt.  Who must show first?

D) On the turn, Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in.  Players A and B call. The river is dealt.  Players A and B both check.  Who must show first?

[Nick C]

A)....Player B

B)...Player A

C)...Player B (this conflicts with current rules, but this would be my house rule)

D)...Player C (likewise, same as "C")

I like your question because the current rules really don't cover the all-in situation you described.
Back in the day, it used to be the last act of aggression even from an earlier street. However, the current could indicate that Player A should show because of his position...very interesting. I'm interested in what others have to say.

[MikeB]

Brian:
Great case. The subject of showdown order was part of the "Atlantic compromise" of TDA Summit 2013. Prior to 2013, many European venues used "last aggressor" to start the order of show, even if there was no aggressor on the final street. If there was no betting on the final street, then these venues would keep going backward through prior streets until they found the last aggressor and he would be first to show. In contrast most U.S. venues used "last aggressor on the final street only... otherwise first to act". Another part of the compromise was the adoption of the first card off the deck rule to be at your seat for a live hand.

On showdown order, the adopted language is in Rule 16: Showdown Order. In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.)

Based on this standard, for your cases the player who must show first is:

Case A: Player B b/c B was the last aggressor on the final street
Case B: Player A b/c A would be first to act.
Case C: Neither. Rule 15 applies. The cards should be tabled face up on the turn b/c there is an all-in player and no further betting action is possible
Case D: Neither. Rule 15 applies. All cards should be tabled face up after betting action is concluded on the river. Because you have an all-in neither A, B or C has the option to muck their cards face down at showdown in this case.

[Nick C]

Mike,

I understand what you're saying and I can agree for tournament poker. Do you think that applies to cash games, also? I remember going all-in on the flop and holding my cards until the river card were tabled before showing anything.

[Brian Vickers]

Mike, thank you for the response.  I agree with your answers as they pertain to tournament play.  The issue I am having relates solely to cash play and specifically to topics C and D.  I wanted to get the opinion how other managers and floors handle this rule on cash games in their rooms.  This shouldn't be an issue at all but some of the players in my room have decided that they will disregard the ettiquette of the game and attempt to make another player show if the rule allows it.  Our house rule as it currently stands for C is that we revert back to left of the button if the all-in took place prior to the river and no action took place on the river between any other player.

Brian:
Great case. The subject of showdown order was part of the "Atlantic compromise" of TDA Summit 2013. Prior to 2013, many European venues used "last aggressor" to start the order of show, even if there was no aggressor on the final street. If there was no betting on the final street, then these venues would keep going backward through prior streets until they found the last aggressor and he would be first to show. In contrast most U.S. venues used "last aggressor on the final street only... otherwise first to act". Another part of the compromise was the adoption of the first card off the deck rule to be at your seat for a live hand.

On showdown order, the adopted language is in Rule 16: Showdown Order. In a non all-in showdown, if cards are not spontaneously tabled, the TD may enforce an order of show. The last aggressive player on the final betting round (final street) must table first. If there was no bet on the final street, then the player who would be first to act in a betting round must table first (i.e. first seat left of the button in flop games, high hand showing in stud, low hand showing in razz, etc.)

Based on this standard, for your cases the player who must show first is:

Case A: Player B b/c B was the last aggressor on the final street
Case B: Player A b/c A would be first to act.
Case C: Neither. Rule 15 applies. The cards should be tabled face up on the turn b/c there is an all-in player and no further betting action is possible
Case D: Neither. Rule 15 applies. All cards should be tabled face up after betting action is concluded on the river. Because you have an all-in neither A, B or C has the option to muck their cards face down at showdown in this case.

[Tristan]

I personally favor last aggressor on the final betting round.  In the case of no aggression on the river, in order from the button.

No trying to sort out who did what on the flop, etc...

[Nick C]

In a cash game when a player goes all-in on the flop and there is no further action, I would insist that the all-in shows first.

I am adding this exception to the rule: This would only apply when the all-in player made the last aggressive act. In all other cases when betting continues between others and a side pot is created, the players competing for the side pot must show before the all-in.

[Tristan]

In a cash game when a player goes all-in on the flop and there is no further action, I would insist that the all-in shows first.

I am adding this exception to the rule: This would only apply when the all-in player made the last aggressive act. In all other cases when betting continues between others and a side pot is created, the players competing for the side pot must show before the all-in.

Yeah, that's what I meant by aggressor on the final betting round.  Last aggressor on whatever street betting was final whether it pre-flop/flop/turn/river.  If there is check/check on the river, first from the button shows.