Posting Blinds when consolidating tables ?

Skibo1973 · #1 08-15-2007, 06:05 PM

Was playing in a tournament (No-limit) at our community club - started out with 8 tables / 9 players each table
At one point we got down to 18 players on 4 tables - we had 4 players at our table so we moved over to a table with 5 players - filling in the empty seats (the other two tables similarly)
We probably should have high carded for the button at that point - but anyway we didn't
The other table people just sat down, when the hand finished the button and blinds moved, and they started playing.
At our table, one player insisted that we (the arriving players) either had to each pay the big blind or wait until the big blind came around to us before we could play at the table.
Now I can understand if we were arriving at a ring game table, but not in the tournament situation of combining tables.
Tried to check Roberts Rules of Poker today - and I think he was wrong (the people running the tournament over ruled him - but none of us are experts)
Was he right ? He told us that he was an expert

AKQJ10 · #2 08-15-2007, 06:15 PM

No, new players at a table don't post blinds in a tournament. That player may be an expert at lying.

Now, it's up to the TD to break and consolidate tables in a way that doesn't leave people posting blinds two hands in a row, for example. Typically the player who was closest to posting the BB at the old table should be seated in the seat closest to the BB at the new one, I believe. I could be wrong about that.

PantsOnFire · #3 08-15-2007, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
At our table, one player insisted that we (the arriving players) either had to each pay the big blind or wait until the big blind came around to us before we could play at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense.

There are two methods that are commonly used and neither introduce extra blinds. The first is to do a complete random draw for all seats. The second is for the existing players to remain where they are and the arriving players to draw for the empty seats.

In the live tourneys I have been in, the second method is used. One table is picked as the final table. The players there stay where they. The tourney director goes the the breaking up table with the available seat numbers concealed and people pick a seat for the final table.

AngusThermopyle · #4 08-15-2007, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Now, it's up to the TD to break and consolidate tables in a way that doesn't leave people posting blinds two hands in a row, for example. Typically the player who was closest to posting the BB at the old table should be seated in the seat closest to the BB at the new one, I believe. I could be wrong about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be thinking of when they move one player to balance tables. Then they (usually) move the player who is about to take the Big Blind to the short table and he takes the seat closest to the Big Blind.

Breaking tables, they should randomly assign new table and seat.

In the OP, you should have never gotten to 18 players on 4 tables. They should have broken down to 3 tables when you had 27 players.

Skibo1973 · #5 08-15-2007, 06:50 PM

Thanks - your replies were consistent with all the other players at the tournament's opinion - this one fella was just a loud mouth who continued with what an expert he was compared to all us hicks
We had multiple players go out almost at the same time at multiple tables simply coincidence - that's why we had to suddenly combine 4 tables

Khaos4k · #6 08-15-2007, 07:06 PM

He was probably confusing tournaments with cash games, and is so arrogant that he kept pushing it believing that he was right.

AngusThermopyle · #7 08-15-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

We had multiple players go out almost at the same time at multiple tables simply coincidence - that's why we had to suddenly combine 4 tables

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no.
3 tables is 27 players.
So 4 tables should mean you had 28 or more.
10 of 28 players busted out at once? I kind of doubt it.

Your TD did not control the situation, which is not unusual.

I saw one tournament down to 3 tables where the player distribution was 8-6-5 and the TD refused to balance the tables since he needed just one more player to bust out so he could combine them into two 9 player tables. (their printed rules state that tables with a 3 player discrepancy must be balanced).
The 5 handed table was ticked (blinds come around too fast), and stalled. The 6 handed table was ticked that the 6 handed table was not "playing". I chuckled from the sideline.

PantsOnFire · #8 08-15-2007, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I saw one tournament down to 3 tables where the player distribution was 8-6-5 and the TD refused to balance the tables since he needed just one more player to bust out so he could combine them into two 9 player tables. (their printed rules state that tables with a 3 player discrepancy must be balanced).

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, this sucks. How hard is it to move one player?