Why are showdown rules different from the norm, when any player is all-in?

[Nick C]

It was requested to start a new thread...so here it is:

Why are showdown rules different from normal just because a player is all-in? Why does TDA rule #11 conflict with the proper order of showdown?

[Spence]

Is it in conflict? Who would open first under Rule 11?
11: Face Up for All-Ins
All cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete.
All players MUST open under this rule but still who does open first? Last aggressor? First position?  Depends on the street? This rule frustrates me to no end! If a player mucks does the dealer open the hand? Should there be a penalty? (this would be if the cards ARE retrievable)
How do these differ from normal showdown rules? This is obviously not about showdown order but about why hands must be shown. Is this the root of the issue?
Just for fun here's rule 12
12: Showdown Order
In a non-all-in showdown, at the end of the last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet in the last round, the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise. In stud, the player with the high board must show first. In razz, the lowest board shows first.

[Nick C]

ROBERTS RULES......SHOWDOWN
7. If there is a side pot, the winner of that pot should be decided before the main pot is awarded. If there are multiple side pots, they are decided and awarded by having the pot with the players starting the deal with the greatest number of chips settled first, and so forth.

8. If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay. If there are one or more side pots (because someone is all-in), players are asked to aid in determining the pot winner by not showing their cards until a pot they are in is being settled. A player may opt to throw his hand away after all the betting for the deal is over, rather than compete to win the pot. However, the other players do not lose the right to request the hand be shown if he does so

I will ask this question again. In TDA Rule #12 why is a non-all-in showdown specifically mentioned? Does that not indicate that it would be different if there were no all-in?

[K-Lo]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the issue here.

To paraphrase, Rule 11 tells us that when we are in an all-in situation, such that there will be no further betting for that hand, everyone must open up without delay.  To me, there is no reason for setting out an order because everyone has to show.  Essentially, ALL players must show "first" - we don't want there to be any waiting because everyone will eventually see everyone else's cards.

Rule 12 is then employed for other situations.  There is a specific order for people to show, presumably because once the first person shows, subsequent players still in the hand are not obliged to show.  So, the "later" players can wait until the first person shows, and then muck.  The non all-in situation is different because ultimately, some cards will be mucked without showing, in contrast to the all-in situation.

Am I missing something?

[JasperToo]

I don't think you are missing anything.  But I think the problem comes in when there are side pots because RROP has a specific procedure of having ONLY the side pot participants open first so that there is less confusion over the winning hands.  Rule #11 gets in the way of that a little bit because it says for everyone to open up "first" as you say.

For tournaments and those rare side pot moments I don't think the conflict is that large.  Everyone can open and then everyone can help the dealer read the hands for each side pot until we push the main pot to the winner.  Nobody mucks until after each pot is awarded and everyone sees the hands so we know there was  a proper elimination and no chip dumping and we move on to the next hand.

So the basic procedure can stay in tact, determine side pots first in order of creation, then the main.  The only difference being that all hands are exposed at the same time in the process for our tournaments.

[Nick C]

Okay guys,
You do it your way and I'll do it according to Robert's Rules.
Why should all players cards be turned up when there is an all-in, only?

K-lo, I have to say that I'm surprised that you don't recognize the problems that showing the all-in hand can create. Were you ever a dealer?

Jasper, I'm glad you agree, at least in part. The biggest problem that I have with some of the rules is: why are they different from RRoP?
They are not improved, they only complicate most situations. 

That's how I see it.

[K-Lo]

Okay guys,
You do it your way and I'll do it according to Robert's Rules.
Why should all players cards be turned up when there is an all-in, only?

K-lo, I have to say that I'm surprised that you don't recognize the problems that showing the all-in hand can create. Were you ever a dealer?

Nick - I'm just trying to understand what your issue is so I can make a contribution.  I'm assuming that is why you started the thread.  Your last statement here seems a bit derogatory, but I hope I am  simply misconstruing the tone.  I have been dealing cards for 20 years and now train dealers for a recreational league.  Lawyer by day, TD by night.  I'm not purporting to be an expert on the Rules, just someone who can offer suggestions for improvement based on my own experiences. 

If your issue is "Why should all players cards be turned up when there is an all-in"?  Then I would say simply because the TDA Rule currently says so.

If your issue is "should the TDA Rule that says so be changed so as not to require that players cards be turned up when there is an all-in", then this is a different question which was not clear from your original post.  Perhaps there is some history here that I have no knowledge of. 

Right now, I interpret the TDA Rule as overriding the general rule in the RROP.  This is why I can accept the fact that in cash games, players do not need to flip up their hands in an all-in situations, but in tournaments, it is necessary to do so in order to comply with the TDA Rule.  I had assumed that this was the case possibly to minimize the possibility of chip dumping, which would arguably be a more important issue in tournaments to protect other players, than in a cash game.  Is it that you would prefer that cards not be shown in an all-in situation in tournaments as well?  Personally, I don't feel strongly either way.

Or is your issue that the reverse ought to be true - that all cards should be turned up at showdown even in non-all-in situations? 

So far, we have agreed on a lot of things.  I just don't understand your point of this post yet, maybe if I did I would agree with it too.

[Nick C]

K-lo,
The statement was in no way a derogatory comment. Your contribution to this forum is the best addition in months. I will try to find a better way to make my point on this because it goes against what I teach dealers for proper procedures at the showdown. I'll be back when I have more time.

[K-Lo]

Thanks for the clarification.  I appreciate the compliment.  I look forward to further discussion.

[Spence]

Okay guys,
You do it your way and I'll do it according to Robert's Rules.
Why should all players cards be turned up when there is an all-in, only?

I think the issue here is about collusion, chip dumping, fairness and integrity for ALL tournament players. Tom brought up a good point on another post about the importance of hands being shown in a tournament so that any discrepancy can be avoided. Eliminations must happen and they must happen properly. The all-in must show rule is for the protection of every player in the tournament, be they at the table or not.

I will ask this question again. In TDA Rule #12 why is a non-all-in showdown specifically mentioned? Does that not indicate that it would be different if there were no all-in?

As for the different wording of the rules between 11 and 12 I think it is simply to differentiate the fact that there IS a change in what is the norm at the showdown. This seems to be a time where the exception has created a rule rather than let the rule stand and the exception be stated. That makes little sense. What I'm saying is put the two rules together and simply state at the end "in a non all-in situation" etc. etc.

[Nick C]

Gentlemen:
There is confusion created by these rules or we would all clearly understand what they are trying to say. I guess one of my arguments comes from the rules insisting that all hands be shown on every showdown involving an all-in player? Yet there are those that think there is something wrong with asking to see a called hand during a regular showdown? What the hell is the difference?
Unless I am missing something, it's okay for me to muck my hand during a normal showdown (no all-in players) when I see a better hand but, if there is one all-in player  involved, every player must show their hands.  Why?  What's the difference? 

[K-Lo]

Nick - I personally wouldn't object to a new rule that says whenever there is a showdown, involving an all-in or not, all hands that are eligible to win the pot must be shown. 

Perhaps it isn't that way because it would slow down the game too much?  Or maybe it is assumed (wrongly) that chip dumping would not be as prevalent in a non all-in situation because everyone is expected to continue playing, but in an all-in situation, the all-in player may be more likely to be simply giving up and dumping the rest of his chips to a friend?  I don't know... I'm just theorizing here.

[JasperToo]

I think the difference is a little of what K-lo is theorizing..

Player is in a hand with friend and decides he wants to dumb his chips to him... they signal each other and the squeeze happens and they are heads up (or not, may not matter much)..  If we don't show, the all-in player could have accidentally made a straight or two pair but just tosses his cards when his buddy shows an ace or a single pair. 

That is just one example....we want to make sure that actual eliminations happen when they are supposed to (as much as we can).

Now I think it is possible in the NON all-in situation to move chips to your friend, but the truth is there are opportunities for that that don't involve a showdown.

and I reiterate that not showing is part of the game.  So I don't like a rule that says everybody shows all the time even if there is no all-in.

[Nick C]

Jasper and K-Lo,
Thanks for your input on this rule. All of what you say is true. I agree that showing all hands would slow down the game. I guess what I am trying to defend is the right for any player at the table to see a called hand in a non-all-in situation, as well as an all-in one.
Unfortunetly, I have had experience with players dumping chips and the best way to stop it is to let all players know that their hands could be shown at the showdown. To allow a player to call a bet, or raise and muck his hand after being in for all bets is the easiest way to "dump chips!" Why give them the added "protection," that they don't have to show their hand? I don't want to see every hand at every showdown, that's not what I'm saying. I just want the players in the game that might be thinking of making an unethical move, to know that their hand could be revieled at the showdown, at the request of any player. Kind of like a random "drug-test," if you will.

The integrity of the game will be better served if this rule applies to all showdowns and not just those with an all-in player.

[JasperToo]

I think that is a perfectly reasonable stance to take and I think that rule #14 and the corresponding RROP rule is designed to do exactly that: let players know that their hand could be exposed if people are suspicious of their play.  I just don't want players to ask to see a hand everytime they want "information".