Tournament all-in ruling

[slavic]

140 player NL tourney around 80 players left and the blinds are of the nature that it’s starting to cramp the mid stacks.

50 / 100 blinds no ante.

EP player limps ( I have no idea why?) super calling station calls (the guy is 97, I hope I look as good when I’m his age) the SB calls and the BB checks the option.

Pot $400 J 6 7r

SB checks, the BB bets the pot this leaves him $200 left, next two players fold, and the SB puts the BB all in. The BB of course calls.

The BB is in seat one and sitting on the opposite side of the muck with the pot collected to his side. The SB quick roles his hand AJo and the BB shows frustration and spikes his hand to the table facedown hitting the chips in the pot and one card touching a burn card. The burn card was burned correctly and is tucked in under the chips. The BB then picks up his two cards and turns them over J8o.

The SB calls a dead hand, and the tournament director is called over.

The tourney director listens to the situation; the dealer does an excellent job of explaining the action. Kudos to the fellow, he’s new to the room.

Now the SB is giving a flurry of reasons for the BB’s hand to be dead, but the Director decides not to kill the hand.

His statement is that the hand can only be dead if it hits the muck and since the two cards could be distinguished they are live. He then states that it can not be inferred that the player meant to surrender.

Play continues and an 8 spikes on the river giving the BB new life.

I personally liked the ruling, but was it correct? The table debated that until it broke 4 hands later.

[Edge34]

I like the call. The hand couldn't really be called dead because, as the TD said, it couldn't be inferred that the BB meant to surrender his hand, and the two cards were so easily distinguished. Especially since the BB was all-in anyway (which has nothing to do with the exact rules, probably, but still), I'm thinking he CAN'T really fold, and even if he could, nobody in their right mind actually would. Close call, but the SB's a nit - and yes, I know that doesn't legally matter either, but the hand was ruled well. Long, rambling answer over...

-Edge

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...I'm thinking he CAN'T really fold, and even if he could, nobody in their right mind actually would.

[/ QUOTE ]Nobody in their right mind would throw cards, either.

[Edge34]

Nobody in a calm, rational state would. However, being the imperfect human beings that we are, this sort of thing occasionally happens. Judging by the description given in the original post, the cards were "spiked" or something to that effect, which I took as more of a way of throwing them down in disgust with one's situation.

I wrote my response in a VERY tired state last night, and may not have been the most coherent I've ever been. Did you agree with the call of the TD though or not?

-Edge

[slavic]

which I took as more of a way of throwing them down in disgust with one's situation

The cards were thrown in a single motion upward with a spin towards the center of the table, they were never exposed during this process. At the same time the player rolled his eyes, sighed, while looking up and to the left. He then immediatly looked back down at the cards and turned them over.

[LetsRock]

I agree with the ruling.

The "cards in the muck" rule is covered by the "reasonable inerpretation" clause. If there was no intent to muck, and his cards are obviously distinguishable from the muck, then they can, within the framework of most rules, be determined to be not dead.

I hate it when players try to enforce "rules" strictly because it happens to benefit them at the time. It's about the intent of the rule and the nit should go tell it to someone who cares. I have to imagine he was pleased to see J8 until the turn delivered the beat anyway.

[Zetack]

With the caveat that I've never played in a B&M tourney in my life, I think its the right ruling.

There are solid reasons that a very rigid and technical application of rules and law is important in the courtroom, very few of which apply to a game, which poker ultimately is.

The rules are designed to promote (among other things) fairness in play. Its absolutely clear that the BB didn't intead to fold his way out of the tournament and there wasn't any other reason (like confusion over which cards were actually his, or disadvantage to a third player) to enforce the cards in the muck rule and call his hand dead). That the Sb sought to gain a huge advantage by insistence on a technical application of the rule that in itself would be unjust--was unsporting, mean spirited, a form of angle shooting, and completely out of line with the intent of the rules.

My 2c anyway.

--Zetack

Edit: I suppose my answer may be colored by the fact that I find it incredibly offensive that a player is unwilling to live and die by the quality of his play and the luck of the cards...to try and get that hand declared dead is just low.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
However, being the imperfect human beings that we are, this sort of thing occasionally happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to me, it doesn't. I just don't see what's so hard about acting like you've lost a pot before. I don't even play B+M any more, mostly because of this nonsense.

And yes, I think the TD made the proper ruling.