Hand exposed by accident. What's the correct ruling?

[Kevin J]

Most couldn't remember this ever happening exactly like this and it was the subject of conversation for hours afterward .

I raised, the button cold-called, and the sb started contemplating. As he did, he exposed one of his cards to the button. Being very honest, the button mentions that he clearly saw a card.

Even though I appreciated his honesty, I didn't think it was fair that he knew an exposed card that I did not. The sb wasn't in the hand yet, but the button definitely was.

The floor was called and asked the button what card he saw. He correctly identified it and the floor ruled that the card must be exposed. I thought it was the right ruling, since the sb has a responsibility to protect his cards. But one player in particular (not in the hand), had a real problem with it...

What if someone now wanted to take a shot and just declare out of the blue that he saw someone's hand whether he really did or didn't? Suppose he said, "I saw a black ace"? The floor is called and it's determined there was no black ace. That would be an advantage as well.

I admit, it's hard to refute that logic, although I think it would be a simple matter to implement a severe penalty upon a player for doing this.

Anyway, what was the correct ruling for this hand? Should the card have been exposed? Or should the hand have proceeded with the button knowing this card, but not me? Thanks.

Btw- The reason few have ever seen this situation is because few players (who were the button), would be honest enough admit to seeing the card. So I really felt bad. It was as if he (and the sb) were being punished for his honesty.

[DeuceKicker]

If a card or cards are exposed to a player still in the hand, all other players in the hand are entitled to that information right away. Good on the button for being honest.

If someone shows their cards to their buddy who has folded, and another person wants to make a stink about it, they can say they want to see the cards, and the dealer would put them aside until after the hand (at least that's how I've seen it done.)

Getting back to your point, if someone wanted to abuse this by making up crap, they should/would be shown the door.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


Getting back to your point, if someone wanted to abuse this by making up crap, they should/would be shown the door.

[/ QUOTE ]

First player: "I saw a black ace"
Other player has K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

One would hope that a Floor would have the balls to hand him some empty racks.

[PantsOnFire]

I don't like the way this went down.

What if button saw both cards and they were AA. If he tells the table and SB has to expose his cards, SB is really getting screwed. Button can just keep it to himself and fold hoping SB can cash in on the other player.

If button wants to be honest, he can split the pot with SB if he has prior knowledge and beats him with a set or something. I don't think the play of SB versus the other player should be affected.

I think in the end, I don't want SB to be punished by having his hand exposed to more players. Yes, button has an advantage and if he is honest, I think he can compensate that advantage at the end of the hand if he wishes.

So the two scenarios I see are if button sees a superior hand in SB, he can just fold, let SB try and beat the other player for the pot and tell SB after that he should be more careful. If he sees an inferior hand and ends up beating SB for some cash, then his conscience can compensate SB somehow.

In a tourney, I would think just playing the hand per normal and mentioning to SB afterwards in the only fair play.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
What if button saw both cards and they were AA. If he tells the table and SB has to expose his cards, SB is really getting screwed. Button can just keep it to himself and fold hoping SB can cash in on the other player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because button folding because he saw the AA screws the other player who now gets lesser odds on his draw solely because the SB exposed his cards to the button.

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the end, I don't want SB to be punished by having his hand exposed to more players.

[/ QUOTE ]

well someone is going to get the raw end of this deal. It seems to me that it makes more sense for the player who screwed up by exposing his cards to be the guy who sufferes for the mistake, then the innocent player who had nothing to do with causing the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
If button wants to be honest, he can split the pot with SB if he has prior knowledge and beats him with a set or something. I don't think the play of SB versus the other player should be affected.

I think in the end, I don't want SB to be punished by having his hand exposed to more players. Yes, button has an advantage and if he is honest, I think he can compensate that advantage at the end of the hand if he wishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm truly amazed that you see no problem with two playesr showing their cards to each other and splitting pots up betw een themselves. I don't think this is reallly good for the game.

[Xanthro]

This happens often, people constantly accidently expose their cards, and if you are looking for reactions to people you'll often see hole cards.

What I do is simply warn the person after the second time and the hand is over. I don't warn them the first time, because it's not a trend, and I don't warn them in the hand because some people have become irate when being warned.

I was in a tourny at the MGM Grand where a guy would have had to show his cards everytime if because I caught a glimpse of them they had to be exposed. Yes, I warned him a number of times, but he couldn't keep from exposing his cards for more than a few hands after being warned.

If they started to expose his cards because I saw, I would certainly stop warning him, because it just hurts him more for something he wasn't trying to do.

BTW, I think he simply had a real hard time seeing his own cards unless they were at a distance and really exposed. Eyesight certainly seemed to be the issue.

[Kevin J]

It's funny how this would seem to be a pretty simple and common situation, yet even experienced players are on total opposite sides.

FWIW- I agree with you and DeuceKicker. Not just because I would've been the one at a disadvantage, but bacause,

a). I think it's the player's responsibility to protect his hand. If exposed even by accident, it's his consequence to bear. And,

b). Having a player in the hand who knows a card out of the deck is an unfair advantage to others who are in the hand.

This seems common sense, but like I said even some of the old timers in the game didn't agree. They thought making a someone expose his cards while in the middle of a hand was ridiculous. Btw- Here are the results:

The sb decided to call, since he would've been all-in. The exposed card was the 7d and he wound up winning the hand with a 4 card diamond flush!

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't think it was fair that he knew an exposed card that I did not. The sb wasn't in the hand yet, but the button definitely was.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Small Blind should not be forced to show his card if he decides to play the hand. The unfairness to the Small Blind in being forced to play his hand partially exposed far outweighs any advantage the Button may get by seeing one of his cards.

If the Small Blind folds, then his card can be exposed.

The floor person who made this ruling badly misinterpreted the "show one, show all" rule. The angle shooting opportunities already described in this thread give the most obvious reasons why you can't expose a player's cards while their still in the hand.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]

The floor person who made this ruling badly misinterpreted the "show one, show all" rule. The angle shooting opportunities already described in this thread give the most obvious reasons why you can't expose a player's cards while their still in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the floorperson did not expose the SB's cards--the SB did!

If the SB doesn't want all of his opponents to see his cards, then he should protect them better.

Remember, there's a rule that says he has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect his hand. This includes keeping private cards private. If you don't protect your hand, you expose yourself to massive repercussions. Think of the guy whose cards get swept into the muck accidentally, because he wasn't protecting them. We don't mind if HE gets harsh punishment (a death sentence, in essence).

In this case, the SB didn't get the death sentence--but he was paraded naked down Main Street, if you get my drift.

[Kevin J]

I agree it sucks for the sb if he has a hand he wants to play, but then he should've been more careful about protecting his hand.

This kind of reminds me of an incident where I posted my big blind and the dealer dealt my first card, but skipped me on the second card! I was talking to someone behind me at the time and didn't notice it until someone had raised and someone else 3-bet. I thought this should've been a clear mideal, but the floor ruled I was SOL. It was my responsibility to protect my hand even though it was clearly a dealer error. I had to keep the blind money out there with no hand! Most on here agreed with the decision and after it was properly explained, I had to as well.

It's a slightly different situation, but one that tells how the onus is on the player to pay attention and protect his hand at all times. Otherwise, you suffer the consequences. This makes sense to me.