When is it ever Correct?????

Hello again all,


Well rather than posting the situation that happened to me ( at Foxwoods, where else does shit happen to me )... I just want to ask the forum a question..cause maybe I'm missing something here.


Here it goes...


When is it correct ( if ever ) for a DEALER to turn a players cards over?


CJ

Frankly, I think it would be better for you to describe the events, and then ask us whether the dealer's action was appropriate.


I believe that the exact rule may vary from room to room, but in general, any player at the table may ask to see any hand involved in a showdown. The purpose of this rule is to prevent collusion. I've seen people ask to see hands perhaps 100 times, and I don't think that collusion was suspected in any case. So what happened?

I'm not referring to IWTSTH. (although I wish that rule would get tossed in the toilet )


No one asked at all for any cards to be turned over.


CJ

Well, in that case, I don't think there is ever any reason for a dealer to turn a player's cards over, unless he's stepped away from the table and the dealer mucks his hand, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. So what happened?

Andy,


I will post what happended, but I am waiting for a few responses to the actual question...


I agree with you.. I think the only times a dealer should ( usually ) touch a players cards are..


1) when dealing

2) when retrieving them for the muck


and, in my opinion, the only time a dealer should turn a players downcards UP.. is..


1) when ALL opponents cards are mucked, and lone opponent hasn't shown all 7 cards to receive pot.

2) when ALL opponents cards are mucked, and some idiot wants to use the IWTSTH rule.


CJ

The rule allowing anyone in the hand to request to see the hands at the showdown is NOT meant to prevent collusion. In fact, this purpose can be easily thwarted simply by folding the hand to a bet on the end. Once the hand is folded to a bet, one is not allowed to ask to see the folded hand. The colluding players need only make sure that one of the players bets or raises on the end allowing his confederate to fold the hand.


This is the rule. It true purpose, believe it or not, is to allow players to gain information. Just like paying to see if your opponent has the goods, every player at the table is allowed to see what each player has at the showdown.


That's the logic. If everyone checked, or if anyone called the bet, everyone at the table has a right to see the hands of the players still in the game.


I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the rule. Players are not allowed to overuse the rule, and the house often reserves the right to refuse to honor a request if it deems that the rule is being overused.


Therefore, I use the rule, because I can. I gain information when I ask to see the hand. That's what the rule is designed for, so I use it. It's not really that great for preventing collusion, but it does help me get a bead on how other players play their hands.


Steam away!

it doesnt surprise me that you had a problem there. the dealers there are perhaps the worst anywhere. half of them barely shuffle the cards.


as far as your inquiry i think it is tough to answer in a vacuum. as i understand it you are not asking a rules interpretation question, so the answer depends on the situation. but i would say it should never happen if the player is still at the table and is physically capable of turning his cards over. if it is a situation where he one player asked to see anothers cards and the other refused the dealer should call a floorman but should not touch the cards.


Pat

Rich,


Every casino employee that I have ever talked to about the IWTSTH rule has said that its intended purpose is to prevent collusion. Every magazine article that I have read on the subject has said that its purpose is to prevent collusion. You are the second person I have ever seen suggest that its purpose is to allow players to get a line another player's play. Why would a casino have this rule in place to allow people to get a line on other players' play? All it does is antagonize people and get them out of the gambling mood. If for no other reason, this is why I think that you shouldn't invoke the rule either. You are correct that the rule does little to prevent collusion, which is what makes it a bad rule.

I actually had a big discussion a supervisor at the Bike. Those guys are usually nothing more than arrogant bullies. Anyway, he corrected me about the rule, and that's how I learned that it's not intended to prevent collusion.


I can live with or without the rule. But I will use it occasionally if I think it will help me. I find that people may get upset for a little while, but they go back to their usual ways soon thereafter.

To me, getting upset at someone for acting within the rules is ridiculous. If someone doesn't like a rule, they should take it up with the person that makes the rule, not the person who invokes or enforces it. If someone invokes the rule and asks to see my hand, I turn it over and smile. On the rare occassion when I invoke it and another player gets angry, well, thats his problem, and I suppose everyone else at the table probably benefits from the other player going on tilt.


For you football fans, this reminds me of the non-fumble by Tom Brady in the snow game between the Patriots and Raiders last January. The rule which governed the play--the "tuck" rule--clearly provides that the play in question was not a fumble. Many people--most of them Raiders fans--said the replay official made a terrible decision, and complained that the tuck rule was not a good rule. They lost sight of the fact that regardless of whether or not the rule was "good", it was in fact the applicable rule, and it is the duty of the officials to enforce the rules, not to make judgements about whether or not they are "good" rules.