U Make the Decision – One Player Knows and One Doesn’t

[Rick Nebiolo]

This one comes from a fixed buy 5/10 blind NL game in a Los Angeles card club.

The pot contains about $250 with four players active. On the flop Seat 2 bets $300 “all-in”. Seat 3 calls $300 and has about $600 more to play. Seat 5 ($600 deep) goes into a short tank. Seat 7 (covers all opponents) is last to act and waiting.

While waiting for Seat 5 the player in Seat 2 shows the player in Seat 3 his hand and Seat 3 reciprocates (they do this in an open and friendly manner) while Seat 7 watches intently. After a few more seconds Seat 5 folds. Seat 7 decides that although he could keep quiet and play the hand knowing Seat 3 has knowledge of Seat 2’s hand (this could be the best strategy but isn’t the point of this thread) he decides he wants a ruling now.

Seat 7 asks the dealer to call the floor. When the floor comes Seat 7 explains the facts and Seat 2 and Seat 3 admit their error and apologize. Seat 7 accepts the apology but points out that Seat 3 has complete knowledge of the all-in hand while he doesn’t; meanwhile there is substantial money yet to be bet. Seat 7 asks the floor to freeze the action after he acts and before the turn card is dealt so the floor can make some sort of remedy

The floor agrees and asks Seat 7 to act. Before he acts Seat 7 asks the floor, “Your decision has a bearing on my action. Can I see Seat 2’s cards now? If not, what will be your decision if I just call and what will be your decision if I push all-in?

You are the floor. How do you respond and/or what is your decision?

[Rottersod]

I would let seat 7 see seat 2's cards so that both he and seat 3 have the same knowledge. Seat 2 may be penalized a bit because of this since he may get one extra caller that could bust him but he initiated the problem by showing his hand during play. Seat 3 showing his hand to seat 2 had no bearing on things.

The floor man could tell seat 7 that if he pushes all in then it won't matter what he rules. Seat 2's money is already in the pot.

[midwestkc]

I think that since seat 3 acted before seeing the cards, seat 7 should have to as well. After he acts, he can then see seat2's cards and the hand can play out from there.

[vmacosta]

It took me a sec, but now I see the problem. If seat 7 pushes, seat 3 will have extra information to decide whether or not he wants to call the significant sidebet.

However, in theory this shouldn't have a big impact on how seat 3 acts, since there are only a few rare instances where knowledge of seat 2's card will have an impact on seat 3's decision to call all-in or not. Even in the worst-case scenario, the extra info should only be worth a small fraction of the sidepot.

Since seat 3 never really did anything wrong (its not his fault somebody exposed cards to him), it would suck to punish him.

However, in the end, my gut tells me its easiest to just say that if somebody exposes their cards to somebody involved in a hand, those cards immediately ought to be exposed to every player at the table. I'd like to make room for exceptions, but I generally don't trust floorpeople to have enough knowledge of the games to make the right subjective calls.

[cardcounter0]

I do not see why both hands are not dead. They acted in a collusive manner, violated the one hand to a player rule, and shared information not known to other players with action still pending. Since seat 5 mucked, ship the pot to seat 7, and everyone should keep their cards to themselves on the next hand.

[RegBarclay]

From Robert's Rules of Poker:[ QUOTE ]
During a deal, cards that were shown to an active player who might have a further wagering decision on that betting round must immediately be shown to all the other players

[/ QUOTE ]

Going strictly by the rules, seat 2's cards should be tabled now.

However, this would give seat 7 an unfair advantage since he gets to see the cards prior to making the decision.

Forcing seat 7 to act and then tabling the cards would give seat 3 an advantage if seat 7 moves all-in.

My decision:

If seat 7 wants to play the hand, he must first put in the $300 needed to call, he then gets to see seat 2's cards and may decide to move all-in.

[cardcounter0]

It has a huge impact. If seat 2 showed seat 3 the nuts, he now knows that he is only playing for the additional money in a potential sidepot.

If he knows he has seat 2 beat, he is playing for all the main and side pot.

Even if they are both on the draw, seat 2 could have shown seat 3 some of his outs, and if he didn't show him some outs, there are now 2 less unknown cards he is trying to draw.

From the way the story was presented, it sounds like he was a willing partner to seeing the cards. Both hands dead, two players you won't have to worry about exposing hands in the future.

[RR]

The cards should be shown before seat 7 acts. THe is an arguement for seat 7 to act before the cards are exposed because seat 3 acted in this round before seeing the hand, but seat 7 might push all-in. If seat 7 raises seat 3 gets to act on that bet with information seat 7 did not have when he made the bet so the hand should be shown immediately. If this was a situation where the action was not open (if seat 7 had already acted and was deciding between calling a short all-in and folding it would be proper to wait until after the betting round is complete to show the hand).

[Siegmund]

RegBarclay's solution is probably the one that most strictly restores equity. Do we think the "right" answer also includes any punishment?

I would tend to rule the all-in hand is immediately faced since it was shown to an active player. I wouldn't be surprised or offended to hear a room had a stricter rule that seat 3 was dead. I don't think there is a basis for seat 2 being dead since he was already all-in before showing or seeing.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see why both hands are not dead. They acted in a collusive manner, violated the one hand to a player rule, and shared information not known to other players with action still pending. Since seat 5 mucked, ship the pot to seat 7, and everyone should keep their cards to themselves on the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what the problem is in poker, if your solution is "kill his hand" you are most likely wrong. There would be a few exceptions, but those would be obvious (too many cards etc).