|
|
#1
07-03-2007, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
2/5 - what should the floor ruling be?
i found the floor ruling interesting in this hand. i won't post results yet, but here is the situation:
Pre-flop: 2 EP players limp (4 and 5 seat), button raises (1 seat), both limpers call. flop is As 9s 5s. 1st EP bets $100, while 2nd limper is thinking in the 5 seat, the 4 seat (old guy, prob 65-70) lifts up his cards off the table in front of his face. The 5 seat calls the $100 bet. 1 seat disputes that the 5 seat saw the 4 seats cards and says something along the lines of "how can i play the hand while the 5 seat knows the 4 seats cards" the dealer claims she was arranging the chips in front of her and didn't see the 4 seat lift his cards. the 2 seat agrees with the 1 seat. the floor is called...... 
|
|
#2
07-03-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2/5 - what should the floor ruling be?
If it can be proved that the player saw the cards, then it's show one show all. They aren't going to make the player show his cards without proof that someone saw it, that would be just insane and an angle shoot possibly.
|
|
#3
07-03-2007, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2/5 - what should the floor ruling be?
I'd need overwhelming evidence before I exposed a player's cards, and one other player backing up the accuser isn't enough.
If yet another player, or better yet the dealer, agreed with the One Seat, I would probably order the hand turned up. Either way, all players get a warning that "protecting your cards" includes "don't let others see what they are".
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
