You are the Tournament Director Series 5: The Dealer Thought Everyone Had Folded
This one was sent in by David Blane.
At the Boylepoker IPO, the largest live event I had played, I was dealt 88 in middle position and raised. Everyone folded and the dealer pushed me the pot, whereupon I returned my cards. I'm always very deliberate about the order of this. Then a French guy two to my left, who I couldn't see clearly, said he still had cards. The TD was called and ruled I give him my freshly stacked chips as his was the only remaining live hand. Surely this can't be right?
Disagree with the decision that was made here. Although the dealer should have known there was another player in the pot before he pushed it to David, the other player should have made an attempt to stop the dealer before the pot was pushed. Therefore, I would have awarded the pot to David and returned the amount of the call to the other player. The reason behind returning the call to the other player is because this was a dealer error as well, and there was a chance that the player didn’t realize what the dealer was doing until after the fact.
David didn’t make a mistake – he was awarded the pot by the dealer and then he released his cards. First I would verify that the French player also called the raise. I would ask the dealer to explain me the situation exactly in order to make the right decision. The French player has a responsibility to speak up immediately if the dealer pushes the pot and he still has cards. Further the dealer made a mistake by forgetting that the French player still has cards. It is possible that the French player was hiding his cards below his hand.
If the dealer explains that the French player claimed the pot immediately and his cards have been clearly visible, I would decide to split the pot. If it turns out that the French player didn’t make the call and more than 2 actions happened behind him, I would kill his hand and award the pot to David.
Sure seems to make it a great idea to hide cards and pop them out whenever the last player mucks. If French guy failed to stop the action in a timely fashion and protect his right to act on his hand, I would rule that he surrendered all claim to the pot and the chips would be yours.
In this case basically the dealer and player attention mistake causes that the pot will go to the last live hand in progress that is the only one that is entitled to collect the pot.
If there was substantial action (3 folds) following the player his hand would be dead and if the player was hiding his cards I am also going to kill his hand. The fact that he was French has no bearing on my decision.
I am sorry for this. I would made another decision for sure!
First thing I have to check, if play can be continued, if the deck maybe isn’t completely mixed with the mucked hands and if your two cards are still safe. If there is a chance, hand has to be played to the end!
If not, because you didn’t make any fault, the dealer pushed the pot to you and then you mucked your hand, it is not relevant in this case, that the other hand is still here or not!
The second players was waiting too long to complain, so he can’t claim the pot for himself!
The only way is to split the pot between the two “remaining” players.
I disagree with the ruling that was made in this example. The French player has allowed at least 3 or 4 players to act behind him without him informing the dealer or the players on the table that he still has a live hand. He has not protected himself so I would rule his hand dead, the player with 88 wins the pot
FIDPA (The International Poker Rules) Ruling (Marcel Luske)
Wow , so it looks like players could hold back their cards & show them suddenly and claim A pot. lol ... Middle position have 88 and plays, so all the other actions had passed his neighbour player already, Cut off, Button , SB & BB ! ( All out of turn & even the dealer didnt noticed). The player who had done nothing wrong , collecting first the pot & then give his hand to the dealer get penalised?
To the player that was not acting in turn...
3.2 A player shall not benefit from an error caused by their action.
4.1 Players are responsible to report any errors, discrepancies or violations that promote an unfair game.
4.2 A player is responsible to notify the dealer of any irregularities when it occurs or is first noticed.
5.1 Poker is an individual game. Actions, statements and/or behaviors that compromise the fairness of the game, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are considered unethical play and unsportsmanlike behavior.
All players are obligated to this, so the player who was still holding cards clearly did not tell the dealer in time of which he or she had enough to do so, in order to have a live hand & claim!
The ruling should be easy, the game is played out and the sleeping players hand is dead.
David Flusfeder (IFP – International federation of Poker)
A: No, it can’t be right. Substantial Action (rule 29) of at least three folds has taken place and the pot has been awarded. Even though the ‘French guy’ has not voluntarily folded his hand, we move on to the next one.
If the incident took place in the way David describes then he was the victim of a gross injustice which would give unscrupulous players a green light to hide cards and attempt to claim pots they were not entitled too.
David acted correctly in protecting his cards until he had been passed the chips and that is all a player should ever have to do to prevent a mistake of this nature resulting in the forfeiture of the pot.
We like Thomas Lamatsch’s idea about continuing the hand if this is both fair and possible, but extreme caution would be needed in exercising this option as players may have received information to which they were not entitled when the hand had been deemed to be over.
We agree with those who seek to establish the intent and degree of culpability of the other player. If he has called the last bet, had his cards in view and was simply distracted momentarily when the dealer made his mistake then we would be inclined to return his last call. Indeed if he had done nothing wrong and there had not been substantial action or reasonable time to prevent the error we would even consider splitting the pot. However, that is not what is indicated here. The player with 88 should certainly have been awarded the pot, and at the very most the other player may sometimes get his call back.
Post your comments in the forum