A situation at the poker table

[Foo King]

Three people left in the pot, low limit game. Player 1 at one end, player 3 at the opposite end and player 2 in the middle across from the dealer.

Play on the river: player 2 bets, player 3 calls, player 1 calls and raises all in. Player 2 calls the all in raise, forgetting that there is another player left in the hand, player 3, and player 2 lifts his cards and starts to turn them over, inadvertently exposing the faces of the cards to player 1 but the backs of the cards are still towards player 3.

The dealer says, "Wait, wait, wait. There is sill another player in the pot."

Player 2 says,"I'm sorry. I forgot he was still in this pot. Go ahead. Your play."

Player 3 says, "Since player 1 saw your cards I want to see them too. If one player sees them then everybody sees them."

Dealer says, "Yeah, that's right. You have to show him your cards too."

At this point player 4 speaks up, "No. That's not correct. Player 1 recieved no advantage because he is all in. Player 3 should not be entitled to the advantage of seeing player 2's cards."

Discussion ensued.

Me? I was just a bemused spectator, player 5. The rest of the table and I watched and listened with interest and a touch of amusement.

What is the resolution in a situation such as this? Opinions?

[Dynasty]

The proper resolution is to send the dealer back to dealer school. There's no way the player in the middle has to show his cards while he's still in a hand.

[Abagadro]

I had a somehwat similar situation happen to me last week except that there was no all in and there was action to occur. The guy didn't just lift them up to one person either. He tabled the cards thinking the hand was over and then quickly grabbed them back. Half the table saw them (including some in the hand yet to act) and half (including some in the hand yet to act) did not.

What would be your call in that circumstance?

[BillD]

On the river. Player 1 bets. Player 2 calls. While I'm thinking Player 2 starts to show his hand. Player 1 sees both cards, while I see only one card (not consequential). The other players think that I saw both cards. I raise (which I was going to do anyway) and both players fold. I suspect I had the best hand anyway.

Be careful out there. Best advice is if not sure wait until the dealer asks you to "flip em over".

[Dynasty]

Nobody who is still involved in a hand is ever required to show his cards to another player at the table.

[budman]

I don't think player two needs to show player 3 his cards while the hand is still live. Player one can offer no more action and noone gained an advantage.

[Abagadro]

I'm only following up because you have seen way more on the tables than I have and am interested in a more expansive answer if you are willing to provide one.

So should a player deliberately be able to show someone still in the hand with action to proceed his hand and keep it from another player in the hand with action to proceed?

Hypothetical: Two buddies sitting together. Action is on the river. Three people in hand, the two buddies and one guy across the table. One buddy bets, while the non-buddy is deciding his action he flashes his cards to his buddy who will act after the non-buddy. Does the non-buddy have a right to see those cards at that point? Isn't that giving an unfair advantage to the one player yet to act?

I know this is a extreme example and slides into open collusion, but I don't see a huge difference between that hypothetical and my example above. One (or more) player(s) at the table enjoys a distinct advantage because of the actions of someone who has made their play and decided to reveal his cards to some (but not all) of the table. Is there no responsibility to even up the advantage?

[baggins]

the difference is that the only player with any action left in the hand didn't see the cards. nobody who saw the cards had any action left on the table in the hand. it is as if he showed his cards to his wife who was sweating his play.

in your later example, a player is exposing his cards to someone still left to act. this is completely different. and also completely against the rules.

the best way to protect against this is not to show your cards until you are sure the action is absolutely complete.

but in the original example, there is no way the player can be forced to show his cards to a player still left in the hand. i would raise holy hell if they tried to enforce that on me.