Was I justified or out of line

[Atlanta Andrew]

Kampf, you're way wrong.

Whether the rule can technically be enforced here depends on the card room management and might go either way based on a number of factors.

Whether the rule should be enforced is another story, though. For OP or any player to try and take down this pot by using a rule outside of its intended purpose is angleshooting and very out of line. I would only consider using this rule in a similar situation if the violater might actually be cheating, which is basically never.

If you want to be a nit about the rules at this homegame, insist that violater shows both cards and explain the rule so he knows not to break it again.

-Andrew

[KampfHase]

[ QUOTE ]
Kampf, you're way wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I? Don't think so. I might be a nit. But I am not yet convinced that I am wrong. I might be, but I don't see it, yet. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Whether the rule can technically be enforced here depends on the card room management and might go either way based on a number of factors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Card room management? It's a home game. The management is the host or the members of the group who judge based on the rules set (in this case RRoP).
It might go either way? So, which factors lead to which way?

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to be a nit about the rules at this homegame, insist that violater shows both cards and explain the rule so he knows not to break it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly a possibility: give him the pot with the warning not to break this rule again. Agreed. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[pfapfap]

Y'know, all of you arguing over interpretation of Robert's Rules seem to have missed this one:

[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to settle it, no? Yes, technically, douchebag could get the pot. However, based on this big ol' "House Rule #1" up there (which shows up before the rules of poker), the true winner of the hand gets it. This is completely within the framework of Robert's Rules, so I don't understand the problem.

[TxSteve]

"Long story short, I have distributed my winnings to the legitimate winner of the hand and a portion going to the other players that cashed"

i'm impressed that you took some action to compensate for your rude/bad behavior.

i wish more people would take accountability for their actions and try to make things right

[KampfHase]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for pointing this out, pfapfap. That's an interesting point. Yeah, it's probably unfair to to award the pot to OP just because of a minor non-compliance. I understand that. In this new light, as a floorperson, I would probably award the pot to the other guy if OP wouldn't mind the minor non-compliance.

[sgfried]

If you made it clear what the rules were or what rules were to be followed in case of a disagreement, then I think you as the holder of the only hand left, were the winner. You cannot 'dig' your cards out of the pile. You cannot just show 1 card to some of the people and 2 cards to some of the others. You were wrong in name calling, however, you are more than justitified in taking the pot. It seems that you need to make it abundantly clear that 1 card shown is a mucked hand, since there were others who backed the incorrect decision.

[Atlanta Andrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whether the rule can technically be enforced here depends on the card room management and might go either way based on a number of factors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Card room management? It's a home game. The management is the host or the members of the group who judge based on the rules set (in this case RRoP).
It might go either way? So, which factors lead to which way?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're avoiding the main issue here. None of us are disputing that a rule was broken and that the person in charge (host, floor, whatever...) is technically within his rights to rule the hand dead.

The main point, as I wrote and several others have indicated, is:

[ QUOTE ]

Whether the rule should be enforced is another story, though. For OP or any player to try and take down this pot by using a rule outside of its intended purpose is angleshooting and very out of line. I would only consider using this rule in a similar situation if the violater might actually be cheating, which is basically never.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please think about this concept a bit more, and hopefully you will realize why it's wrong to win the pot this way.

-Andrew

[KampfHase]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the rule should be enforced is another story, though.

[/ QUOTE ]
As mentioned in my last post, I understand that concept now, since pfapfap pointed out that other statement of RRoP (see above).
I still think it should be enforced, since the rules were known in advance. However, I now understand why one would not enforce it.

I actually did email Mr Ciaffone. Here's what he wrote:

[In email 1, I asked Mr Ciaffone about this. Here's what he answered:]

Reply to email 1:
[ QUOTE ]
"I believe the person making this ruling has the authority to rule either
way. Two rules come into play and conflict. With no other info other than
what has been provided, I would give the pot to the K-Q. However, I would
want to know more, like exactly why the player with the ace did not
(refused? ) show his sidecard. If he was asked to do so by the player, why
did the dealer not also ask him to show it? Did player A throw his hand
away because he thought he was beat? As you see, I do not feel I have the
complete story here yet."

[/ QUOTE ]

[In email 2, I quoted an excerpt of the post and sent it to him.]

Reply to email 2:
[ QUOTE ]
"He should be told that he needs to show the card. He should be allowed to
turn up the other card from the discards, if he discarded before being told
to show it. If he has intermingled his hand so badly the card cannot be
retrieved, or if he wants to thumb his nose after being told to show, he
should lose the pot. I would treat it no differently than a player showing a
hand to the person on his right or left, but never face-up; the hand was not
shown to the table."

[/ QUOTE ]

[In email 3, I re-asked him how he would rule in the situation in question and whether the pot should be awarded to the violator.]

Reply to email 3:
[ QUOTE ]
"I would allow him to retrieve the card and show it if he was not warned
ahead of time that he had to show both cards. If he was asked to show the
hand before he mucked it, I would rule it dead. This is not a matter of
rules; it is how I feel the situation should be handled."

[/ QUOTE ]

(If you are interested in the whole dialogue, please, let me know, and I'll post all of it.)

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
If you made it clear what the rules were or what rules were to be followed in case of a disagreement, then I think you as the holder of the only hand left, were the winner. You cannot 'dig' your cards out of the pile. You cannot just show 1 card to some of the people and 2 cards to some of the others. You were wrong in name calling, however, you are more than justitified in taking the pot. It seems that you need to make it abundantly clear that 1 card shown is a mucked hand, since there were others who backed the incorrect decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that OP was completely within his rights here. I also believe that the organizers of this game should not invite OP back. I would not play in a home game that had players who did things like this, and would not invite such players back if I ran the game.

[Atlanta Andrew]

Hey Kampf, that's pretty cool. Thanks for taking the time to send and post those emails.

But STILL...that whole dialogue revolves around the perspective of the room manager. While interesting, I have already said the room manager's decision could go either way based on the interpretation of the rules.

It doesn't matter, though. The issue in question is, "Was I (OP) justified...?" Regardless of room manager's decision, OP is a sleazeball for attempting to use a rule technicality as an angleshoot to win a pot. OP was out of line, as he has already admitted.

-Andrew