Showdown of last remaining hand

[Luca P.]

Yes, not "WOULD", but "MUST" 

[RobinK]

Jasper is right. 100%

Regards

RK

[Guillaume Gleize]

I ruled like Jasper for more than 10 years: They mucked their cards ... no more constested pot.

[Luca P.]

Let's analyze this spot:
two players at the river, it's time for showdown:
Board:

Player A shows
player B shows and mucks saying he has a low kicker, being sure his opponent has a card higher than the 7h on the board.
Player A then shows and claims the pot.

What Would Have Happened if player A showed both cards? Is this an angle shooting?

[Nick C]

Linker_split,

I might consider that "chip dumping" might be taking place, but I wouldn't call it angle shooting. When Player A showed only one card, the dealer should have insisted on seeing the other. Blayer B had no right to the pot because he didn't protect his hand. It would raise some suspition and that is why I like the rule where any player at the table can ask to see a called hand. Why would he (Player A) throw away his hand? Why would Player B show both after A mucked? Strange.

[JasperToo]

Linker_Split, I think Nick's answer is correct.  Though, I wouldn't even say it's chip dumping I would say it's just a bad player.  Look, people throw the best hand away all the time.  That is part of the game.  Player B simply didn't analyze the possibilities well enough and didn't protect his hand.

Your scenario isn't any different than the original one.  Player A showed what player B believed to be the winning card and folded his hand.  The fact that it was a mistake doesn't change the fact that the pot is no longer contested once player B throws his cards away.

As Nick points out, if someone is really concerned about soft play they can ask to see the hand and then watch for another similar play by player B and then start penalizing.

[JasperToo]

And I think the real point here is not that player A didn't show both cards at once, it's that player B (or/and C) didn't protect their hand and insist on seeing both of A's cards before mucking or showing. 

Let's turn it around a little.  let's use your example.  After player A turns over a 5, what if player A decided that he was out kicked and mucked his hand?  Player B would not be required to show his second card either but he would be the last man standing and he would win the pot.

All this is not to say that if this kind of thing keeps happening, especially with the same player, that the dealer shouldn't call the floor and get the player a warning about delay of game, he should.  Your example shows more horsing around than the original example.  This one actually has both players dorking around by only showing one card trying to one up the opponent.

[Luca P.]

And I think the real point here is not that player A didn't show both cards at once, it's that player B (or/and C) didn't protect their hand and insist on seeing both of A's cards before mucking or showing.  

Let's turn it around a little.  let's use your example.  After player A turns over a 5, what if player A decided that he was out kicked and mucked his hand?  Player B would not be required to show his second card either but he would be the last man standing and he would win the pot.

All this is not to say that if this kind of thing keeps happening, especially with the same player, that the dealer shouldn't call the floor and get the player a warning about delay of game, he should.  Your example shows more horsing around than the original example.  This one actually has both players dorking around by only showing one card trying to one up the opponent.

Yep, I completely understand your point of view, I just don't accept it
I mean I absolutely respect it as you would do with mine, but I make the first player who made action to show both cards to avoid some complications and the wasting of time

[JasperToo]

yep point of view respected but not accepted .  I just think it's part of the game that the players should get to be responsible for.

[Nick C]

I'm not sure we should be looking at the poor stooge that mucked his hand as a blunder. I'd be more suspicious that he might be passing chips to his partner.

[JasperToo]

sure, Nick, but you can't judge it by a single event.  Well, you can't really prove it with a single event I guess so mark it down, move on and deal with it when you see it again.

[Spence]

sure, Nick, but you can't judge it by a single event.  Well, you can't really prove it with a single event I guess so mark it down, move on and deal with it when you see it again.

I would be inclined to at least warn that player that actions such as this can be cause for a penalty or disqualification. Making a mental note and continuing on doesn't seem like enough.

[K-Lo]

I notice in version 2 of the rules, there are no more "contested"/"uncontested" showdown provisions.  Have we given up on codifying the "Last man standing" rule?

[MikeB]

I wouldn't say given up... but the TDA is a large tent and as such includes two major camps on the "uncontested" showdown issue. One camp favors not requiring show of the winning hand, the other camp favors "all winning hands must be shown".  The language in Version 2.0 permits both camps to exist under the TDA tent. Perhaps at the next Summit we can move towards a common standard, it will certainly be on the agenda.

Please also note that venues which adhere to the Version 1.0 Uncontested Showdown standard are 100% compliant with Version 2.0 as well.

[Pepper_W]

Ok, I hope I'm not on the wrong page with my rule on this one, but here goes.  We had a serious issue with people showing one card, allowing all other players to fold and then mucking their hidden card without showing.  It's kind of a dilemma, since they seem to be holding the only live hand, however, their hand isn't able to win the pot without both cards.  So, I implemented a rule regarding the showing of only one card.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but it allowed us to gain control again.

If a player hot-dogs and shows only one card, any forward movement of the shown card kills the hidden cards.  Since they no longer hold a valid hand, they can't win the hand.  This leads us to what happens if they show an Ace and two other players fold.  Since they were the last two players in the pot holding valid hands, and they both mucked without showing, they split the pot.  Their hands cannot be pulled back out of the muck since touching the muck kills the cards.  However, at the moment a player shows only one card they are holding live cards.  Since they were the last to hold live cards, they split the pot.

We had to enforce this rule exactly one time.  Now, every player will remind other players to turn over both cards.  But, if they give them any flack, the players will call them on forward motion and kill their hand.  That also happened exactly once. 

We no longer have a problem (AT ALL) with players showing one card with expectations of winning a hand.