strange situation requiring ruling....

[jipster]

I was playing in a small £50 freezeout tonight, when it was down to three a situation occured whereby my opponent, a very loose very agressive player raised my 1600 blind to 4600 total;

My opponent flashed me an Ace as he incorrectly thought i had folded.... i asked for a ruling as i had a playable hand...

the ruling was as follows; my opponent was unable to make any 'agressive' action for the entirety of the hand... he could check or call bets.

I had q10 suited and figured my opponent had ace rag(otherwise he would have flashed me both holecards... as he was frequently doing with big aces when raising... and everything else)

Anyhows, i had about 8k left in front of me and saw a flop of q84 (he had showed me an ace of clubs, and there were no clubs on the flop)... i bet 3k, which he called... the turn came q, so i bet 2k, and he called again... the river came k so i bet 2k again (leaving me with >1000 chips) he called again and my trips held up....

I was wondering firstly about the ruling, is this a correct ruling?

and secondly, was my play acceptable? (etiquette wise)... i had a few 'scruples' about taking advantage of the situation

thanks

[BobK]

Definitely an incorrect ruling. He already hurt himself by showing the ace and now he gets more punishment by not being able to value bet. Makes no sense, as it leaves you in total control of the pot size.

I'd have no qualms about taking advantage tho'. The situation wasn't of your making.

[Xhad]

BobK: FWIW since this is a tournament, and probably ITM, villain flashing his hole cards is against most houses' rules; it's too close to collusion for most people. This isn't like in a cash game where nobody else has any interest in who wins the pot.

[CurryLover]

This seems to have become the standard rule in most UK casino tournaments nowadays. The idea is to stop someone trying to encourage others to fold by showing one or both of his cards deliberately (obviously in certain situations you want your opponents to fold even if you have the best hand, and certain players used to show their cards for this reason).

Until this rule became 'standard' in the UK, some casinos had the policy that if you showed your cards to anyone, even accidentally, your hand was ruled dead. The slightly softer option of not allowing you to take aggressive action once you've shown your card(s) seems to be a compromise solution.

As for ethical issues... well, there are none. If you think you can play QT (or whatever hand) for a profit because you have seen one or both of your opponent's hole cards then you should do it. There are no ethical considerations. You didn't attempt to see your opponent's cards, so you have done nothing wrong.

[AaronBrown]

I have not seen this rule myself in the UK, but it makes no sense to me. When only two players are left in the hand, players should be able to show and speak as they please.

In theory, I can see that Ace-Flasher might have known you hadn't folded, and wanted to signal you to fold since he had at least a pretty good hand, and the two of you shouldn't contest close hands but cooperate to eliminate the third player. But that's a real stretch and if the tournament director believes that happened, Ace-Flasher should be disqualified for cheating, not penalized on the hand. If he doesn't believe that happened, and there would be no reason absent a history of that kind of thing, he only hurt himself by the accident.

My question is why you raised on the flop and turn? Given that he can't do anything, why not wait until the river and then go all-in if you have him beat? You know his hand pretty well, he knows nothing about yours, and he can't do anything, so why not wait? If an Ace showed up on the turn or river, instead of the Queen, you would regret your raise.

[Harkey]

That rule makes no sense, even if it's standard practice in some places. A player shouldn't have his options taken away during the play of a hand (except a ruling that the hand is dead). The offender is already penalized by having one of his cards known. Restricting his/her betting options is ridiculous, in my opinion.

It's the player's responsibility to know what's going on and to protect his hand and abide by the rules. If uncertain, the dealer can be asked and/or a floorman can be called. Once the player shows the hand, a rule has been broken. At this point, the floor needs to decide if the hand is dead, based on the rules of that room and tournament.

If the hand is dead, the pot continues with whoever is still involved (in this case, it gets pushed to you), and then floorman then decides on an appropriate penalty (10 minutes, disqualification, etc.), based on the rules and situation (such as frequency of offense).

If the hand is still alive, then play continues. All players in the hand have all options open thereafter during that hand. At the end of the hand, the floor then decides if any penalty is warranted, as above.

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is why you raised on the flop and turn? Given that he can't do anything, why not wait until the river and then go all-in if you have him beat? You know his hand pretty well, he knows nothing about yours, and he can't do anything, so why not wait? If an Ace showed up on the turn or river, instead of the Queen, you would regret your raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is results-oriented thinking. Even if the guy has AK, I want to make him pay to see that draw.

If an A or a K comes on the turn or river (especially the A, as I might still bet if a K came), he can back off and get to showdown for free. If no A or K comes, then the opponent will probably not call any bet, and the OP completely loses value for the top pair he flopped. I think the OP played it perfectly for value, provided he was ahead.

[BJK]

For the record, I don't agree with the rule either. Either rule the player's hand dead or penalize him after the hand is done. By trying to compromise, they have actually created a rule that, to me, would be very easy to exploit.

I don't blame the OP for feeling guilty, though, because he did exploit the rule in a way. However, I won't blame him for exploiting the rule, though. The rule is there. Use it. Well played, sir.

BTW...did your opponent have AA?

[CurryLover]

Well I don't necessarily think the rule is a good one either. However, like I said, it is the standard rule in most/many UK casino tournaments at this moment in time (all tournaments at Grosvenor and Stanley casinos, for example).

They have a lot of silly rules in some UK casinos. Check this one out: In Sheffield, Bradford and Leeds the standard rule in both PL cash games and tournaments is that you cannot go all-in if doing so would constitute an under-raise. E.g. Player 1 bets £100, Player 2 calls, you have £199. You are only allowed to call the £100 and not allowed to put your last £99 into the pot. Absolutely insane, but there you go. That's the 'official' rule in many casino tourneys and cash games in the North of England. A friend of mine had a straight flush a year or two ago and was prevented from putting her last money into the pot because they told her that 'under-raises' were not allowed!

[PantsOnFire]

The player should have been warned, and the play of the hand to continue normally. He could be assessed a penalty at the end of the hand at the tournament director's discretion.

If there wasn't a third guy still in the tourney and it was down to heads up, then you can show one or both cards during the hand.

Here is the rule:

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 15 - Tournaments
21. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player may not show any cards during a deal (unless the event has only two remaining players). If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.