ruling needed...
 

This happened in my regular home game after I left...but this is how the situation was described to me but a trustworthy friend who wasn't involved in the described hand.

Card pitched to a player is thrown a little sloppily - it doesn't turn over completely - but just flips up a little bit. Someone asks if anyone saw what the card was...one player says, "I think it was a 5"...another player says, "I think it was an Ace"....another player says, "I'm pretty sure it was black."

The player who received the card says, "You're all wrong - let's play the hand."

Pre-flop, this player raises. He gets re-raised - and he all goes all-in.

He turns up pocket Aces - with one of the Aces being the Ace of Spades.

His aces hold up & he wins the pot.

Player who loses the pot is furious of course & says that the Ace of Spades should have been a dead card. Player who had the ace said no one called out the card exactly & no one was even too sure that what they were calling out was correct anyway.

We're all friends - so nothing more than a little cursing being thrown around....but it seems to me that this shouldn't have been allowed to stand & that the player who had the ace would have been better off saying nothing at all - rather than saying "You're all wrong" when, in fact, his card WAS an ace and WAS black.

Just wondering how this would be handled in a casino tournament situation.

Thanks.

Re: ruling needed...
 

probalby with a fist fight tbh

Re: ruling needed...
 

What would happen in a casino is the card would have been replaced to begin with It doesn't matter if a player can name that card.f a card flashes it flashes and the card gets replaced. The player receiving the card doesn't get an option to play it. You don't ask if anyone saw the card or can identify it. If someone thinks it was exposed it is exposed.

Re: ruling needed...
 

In my opinion if nobody can identify it, then it's not exposed.

Re: ruling needed...
 

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion if nobody can identify it, then it's not exposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize how stupid that is.

First players that saw the card but can't identofy it still have information about it that they shouldn't have . . . ie it was black or it was red or it wasn't a face card or it was a face card. Sure they can't tell you what the card was but they know something about it.

Second you have to rely on the players honesty. A card flashes and a player sees it but all he has to do is say that he doesn't know what it is and the card doesn't get treated as exposed? or the player who received the card says that isn't what the card is (In the OPs story we know he is lying because he claimed it wasn't an ace and he had two aces, but what if he had Ace King . . . you wouldn't know that he was lying because he can claim that card that was in question wa sthe King).

Third it requires the player receiving the card to give away information about his hand. A player claims he saw a card and that it was an Ace. The player receiving the card truthfully tells the dealer that it wasn't an ace, now the entire table knows that at least one card in the players hand is not an ace.

If the player really didn't see the card he gains nothing by having it treated as exposed. I am sittying in the game and sa saw a card that I didn't really see, while that card is taken away from a player if I really didn't see it I have no why of knowing whether it was a good or bad card so it is as likely to help the player as it is to hurt him.

Re: ruling needed...
 

Agreed with psandman here. I know that no one likes giving up a good card because it was exposed, but the player here is being really slimy. "You're all wrong." Uhhh, a player called it was an ace, and it certainly was.

Seems pretty clear the card should have been replaced and the pot should not have gone to the hack player.

Re: ruling needed...
 

In my home games in the past we would always ask if anyone saw it and if anyone said yes, the dealer immediately took the card back and turned it up. Sometimes the player who said it was exposed also called out what it was. In some cases it was not and s/he would get a sheepish look but turning it up removed the above scenario from even being a possibility.

Of course the home games I played had dedicated dealers who could control the action more (and I was often one of them)...

Re: ruling needed...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with psandman here. I know that no one likes giving up a good card because it was exposed, but the player here is being really slimy. "You're all wrong." Uhhh, a player called it was an ace, and it certainly was.

Seems pretty clear the card should have been replaced and the pot should not have gone to the hack player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appreciate all the responses....actually, the "hack" player at our table (one of the best players in our game) had pocket Kings....which he had to think was the best hand since he "knew" the other player couldn't have had pocket Aces given the preceding conversation.

Re: ruling needed...
 

the thing is that in a friendly game among friends whom you trust to be honest, I think you can use the --did anyone see it method, but seeing it should not require identification of the card, if anyone says they saw it, you should treat it as seen.

Re: ruling needed...
 

I don't think you should play with casino tournament rules in a friendly home game.

So if it were my game, even if the card was exposed, you'd still be allowed to play it.