Tournament Ruling: You make the call

[tipperdog]

There is no question that SB thought he was calling an all-in bet, correct? Given that fact, killing his hand would be perverse even if the "letter" of the rule says his hand should die (and I don't think the letter of rule so states).
TDs must exercise common sense!

I would say that action is now to the BB, who can call or fold for the remaining T175. I would also give a warning to SB for exposing his hand AND give a warning to BB for keeping "mixed stacks" that result in this kind of problem. Players must keep their stacks tidy.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

TDs must exercise common sense!

I would say that action is now to the BB, who can call or fold for the remaining T175

[/ QUOTE ]

[CardSharpCook]

since when do TDs excersice common sense? At the Bike, an errant PF muck that lands on the floor gets you a 20 min penalty. Once saw a guy get this penalty on the FT. He wasn't pissed or anything, just mucked 47o a little too hard and it slid onto the floor.

[CieloAzor]

Hand is live, action is on the BB. SB gets a penalty should he survive the hand.

I'm guessing you were surprised because the SB's hand was killed.

[SossMan]

Sorry for the delay in the results. I was playing in a tournament.

My initial reaction was that it was clearly not an angle shoot as the SB had no further action. He clearly thought that the BB's bet had him covered and he was calling all in. If I were the TD, my ruling would have been that it was t175 more to the BB and he could call or fold and the SB would be given a stern warning that the next time he revealed a hand prior to subsequent action being completed he would get a 10 min penalty.

The TD (who, like I said before, is very experienced.... Nick, for all the bay area people) made a ruling that I hadn't seen before. The SB's hand was declared dead and he got his call back (as if he folded to the bet).

I guess this is a fair ruling since, technically, exposing your hand prior to completing the action makes the hand dead. It isn't punitive to either player.
The BB flashed an ace and nobody seemed miffed.

I think that either ruling is fine, but there should be a standard.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that either ruling is fine, but there should be a standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a purpose of the TDA. But of course, people have to willingly comply with those rules. It does get very frustrating to have vastly different rules apply when going from tourney to tourney.

And I've seen Nick make some other rather questionable decisions so this doesn't completely surprise me.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
And I've seen Nick make some other rather questionable decisions so this doesn't completely surprise me.


[/ QUOTE ]

such as?

[Lloyd]

There was one crazy hand where on the flop the dealer ran over a guy in the hand. A couple of people acted when he finally realized he'd been passed over and said "wait a minute, I haven't acted yet" and put in a bet. It was ruled a call of one of the players who acted out of turn's bet (which I kind of understand). But what surprised me is that he didn't allow him to raise when the action got back to him. Since the amount of chips he put in did not constitute a raise of the flop better, it was deemed a call of that bet. And like yours this definitely wasn't a case of him trying to angle shoot. The action moved very quickly and he spoke up almost immediately (but a little too late).

[M.B.E.]

I agree with SossMan about what the ruling should have been (stern warning etc.)

I don't find the actual ruling (hand dead and player gets his chips back) too surprising. It would be ludicrous to rule the hand dead and the chips forfeited.

I like the TDA rule. People expose cards by mistake all the time, and it is far too harsh to kill their hand after they may have invested a huge amount in the pot.

Consider this example: on the turn the pot is headsup and the first player makes a large bet. The second player has a royal flush and says "I call" then turns his hand face up. The second player mistakenly believed that the first player was all-in, but actually the first player had a few chips left. Does anyone really believe that the rules should provide for the royal flush to be ruled a dead hand in this scenario? And if so on what logic?

[SossMan]

I emailed Matt Savage with this hand.

I will give Nick a call ............Bad ruling! He should have given the player the chance to call his all in raise, play the hand out and give him a penalty, if he was not already busted.