Need help with ruling

[Brettski]

[ QUOTE ]
Player B didn't commit a crime; he simply overlooked his winning hand and it is highly unlikely he would have retrieved it without help from his neighbor. At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced. My first post in this threat is an example where it can be enforced fairly. In the other two cases I mentioned Player B either retrieved his hand on his own or could have conceivably figured out he had a winner without the help from a neighbor (since he had possession of his cards).

I've always been a "best hand wins whenever possible" type when I worked the floor or as a NL host. But as mentioned in my follow on Scott Olson at the Bike makes a good case for where to draw the line.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that he makes a good case, and that the "one player to a hand" principle must be enforced.

I do believe, however, that one should try to avoid penalising a player for crimes they didn't commit (it seems to me that the only thing the player in Case 2 did wrong was to have good hearing!). I acknowledge that this is not always be possible, and players will be disadvantaged through no fault of there own. An example of this might be where a player picks up his opponent's cards, throws them in the muck, and they are irretrievable. In this case, the player who's hand was mucked didn't do anything wrong (except not protect his hand) but his hand would still be dead.

I also believe strongly in the principle that hands should not be killed by Tournament Directors if there are other remedies and penalties that can be used.

At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there are a number of principles that have to be carefully weighed when making decisions such as these.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But the rule can be enforced against the person violating the rule by warning or removal from the cardroom. enforcement of a rule does not require that a hand die.

[PantsOnFire]

I would say she clearly mucked. And I would also say that the only way her hand can be brought back to life is either by the floor for a reason like somebody miscalled their hand or by the winner of the pot who wants to see that hand.

I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.

And people who have sympathy for her and say she had the best hand and the best hand should win the pot, well I say just flip over your danm cards if you want to win a pot.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point "one player to a hand" should be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. But the rule can be enforced against the person violating the rule by warning or removal from the cardroom. enforcement of a rule does not require that a hand die.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all cases the person violating one player to a hand should be warned. In fact this and inappropriate comments pending action are huge problems these days; floor staff and cardroom management should be more preemptive here (this would be fodder for a whole thread, just not now from me).

Anyway, I wouldn't object to a rule/policy that provides for "best clearly discernible hand wins" even in cases where the player is helped (whether the cards are on there way to the muck or not) or the cards touch the muck (but are discernible and retrievable). But my example showed a reasonable guideline that lies between that sort of policy and "touch the magic muck and your cards are dead". Or I think it would [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever knowingly played in a room with this rule, in fact over the years I've seen probably 8 to 10 times when the IWTSTH rule was invoked, the hand was the winner and the pot was awarded to the "best hand" as it should be.

Jimbo

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would rule that her boyfriend flipping over her cards is the same as a player not in the pot invoking the IWTSTH rule. And when that happens, the hand is dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever knowingly played in a room with this rule, in fact over the years I've seen probably 8 to 10 times when the IWTSTH rule was invoked, the hand was the winner and the pot was awarded to the "best hand" as it should be.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

There another issue here why this is not a good analogy. If She had tossed her cards in and a player other than the (presumptive winner) asked to see her cards and the dealer took them at the end of hand and showed them her hand would in fact be dead.ut if she tossed them out and someone invoked IWTSTH and she grabbed back her cards and flipped them her hand would not be dead. You see a player saying IWTSTH does not terminate her right to table her hand herself.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
You see a player saying IWTSTH does not terminate her right to table her hand herself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you have been holding to this line right through this post.

I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer. Usually, this rule is invoked by a player by stating (not flipping cards) that he wants to see a hand. And usually the dealer will put those cards to the side, award the pot and then show that hand.

So I think the real question is, how do we handle another player flipping cards over before a pot is awarded. And really that's two questions, what do you do with the hand and what do you do with the player who does this?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

[/ QUOTE ]
I have only invoked this rule once (guy did it to me twice) and that was at Caesers. It was a three way pot and this guy had gone all-in on the flop. At the river, he mucked before the other players and I asked the dealer to see his hand. He took the two cards and put them beside the muck. He then sorted out the pot between the other two players, mucked their cards pushed the pot to a player and then showed the hand.

I am fairly certain that when I asked to see his hand, it could be considered live but after the pot was awarded to the player, his cards are then dead.

Am I getting this correct or not?

So when that first player mucked, if I had just reached out and flipped his cards over instead of asking the dealer and gone through the process I described above, does that mean his cards are now live again and he can win the pot?

And if this is true, then I suppose I could sit beside a fish and turn his hand over on the river every time just in case he won one of those pots. I want the money to stay with the fish.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is can you invoke the IWTSTH rule before the pot has been awarded by the dealer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't your not going to have any cards to invoke it on because all the losing cards will be mixed into the muck before the pot is pushed.

If you want to invoke IWTSTH you better do it before the dealer mucks them (oddly enough I often have to explain this to players -- "Yes I heard you , you want to see those cards. But you see you didn't say that until I had already mixed those cards into the muck. now how do you propose that I show you those cards?").

[/ QUOTE ]
I have only invoked this rule once (guy did it to me twice) and that was at Caesers. It was a three way pot and this guy had gone all-in on the flop. At the river, he mucked before the other players and I asked the dealer to see his hand. He took the two cards and put them beside the muck. He then sorted out the pot between the other two players, mucked their cards pushed the pot to a player and then showed the hand.

I am fairly certain that when I asked to see his hand, it could be considered live but after the pot was awarded to the player, his cards are then dead.

Am I getting this correct or not?

So when that first player mucked, if I had just reached out and flipped his cards over instead of asking the dealer and gone through the process I described above, does that mean his cards are now live again and he can win the pot?

And if this is true, then I suppose I could sit beside a fish and turn his hand over on the river every time just in case he won one of those pots. I want the money to stay with the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that at the time you said IWTSTH if the player had immediately grabbed back his cards and flipped them before the dealer got them to muck then they would have been live. Your saying IWTSTH does not kill a hand.

Now the procedure the dealer used here was not the procedur prefer, and part of the reason that is the case is that it creates e issue of uncertainty.

When a player tosses his hand and another player (not the putative winner) asks to see it I will immediately grab it in touch it to the muck (ceremonially denoting it was killed) and then flip it over to be seen and then flip it back over and mix it into the muck.

By holding it aside till after the pot is pushed you create the problem of uncertainty as to when the hand got killed (which is the issue you are concerned about) and also it creates a second problem. And that is if for some reason a floor person rules that hand live and it turns out to be a winner now the pot has already been pushed and we have a much bigger problem.

As to your flipping the hand ove abbsolutely believe the hand is live, simply because you cut off the players opportunity to do it himself. But you miss the other point. If you do this you are subject to penalty. And while the first penalty you get may simply be a warning, if as you say you do it everytime the player folds you will find yourself no longer permitted to play.