Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Brick and Mortar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:09 PM
smarterthanyoda smarterthanyoda is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8
Default What would the ruling be?

This came up in a hand a saw last night. It ended up not being an issue, but I was just wondering what the rule would be in something like this...

At the river, there were four diamonds on the board and 2 players left. One player bet and the second called. The bettor showed a set. The caller looked at his cards for a couple seconds before throwing them face down towards the middle of the table. As soon as he had done this, his buddy watching from the rail said, "So you didn't have a diamond." The caller instantly grabbed for his cards, and got to them right after the dealer had started to pick them up. The cards were sitting right where they had landed, with the dealer's hands on the cards and the caller's hands on top of the dealer's. The dealer let go, and the caller picked up his cards again. It turned out he didn't have a diamond and the bettor won anyway.

My question is, what would have happened if the caller did have a diamond? Did he fold by throwing his cards away, or was his hand still live?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:22 PM
pudley4 pudley4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 1,270
Default Re: What would the ruling be?

He folded, his hand should be dead. If he tries to pick it up again after his buddy told him to, he's violating the "one player to a hand" rule.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:26 PM
m bozeman m bozeman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: florida
Posts: 11
Default Re: What would the ruling be?

It sounds like his hand didn't touch the muck yet. However, with him tossing his cards towards the dealer face down, he is giving his hand up, and I believe his hand would be ruled dead. This would prevent the following from possibly happening; player makes a big bet and action is on you. You take a long time to decide, and the player is staring at you the whole time. You finally fold, pushing your cards facedown, and instantly the other player lets out a big sigh of relief. You quickly try to grab your cards back before the dealer grabs them and puts them in the muck. Can't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-28-2005, 04:34 PM
Percula Percula is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 126
Default Re: What would the ruling be?

One of two things (really the same thing) have to happen in this situation for the hand to be dead.

1) The player had to of declaired the hand dead by saying something like "I fold, take it".

or

2) The cards hit the muck, by either the action of the dealer or the player.

But... one other thing happened and it changes the way I would rule on it... the buddy. It is clear that the guy intended to fold and would not have tried to get his hand back if it were not for the guy asking if he had a diamond or not. That is a clear voilation of the "one player per hand rule". In light of that the hand is dead rather he had the winner or not.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-28-2005, 08:26 PM
Chipr777 Chipr777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Southhaven, Ms
Posts: 87
Default Re: What would the ruling be?

I can see this going either way depending on the cardroom and the floor. I can play devils advocate for both sides of the coin. In what seems to be cut and dry situations, decisions can be made in the "best interest of the game", even if it clearly contradicts the rules. The bystander violated the one player per hand rule and the players clear intent was to fold. On the other hand the cards haven't touched the muck and therefore are still live. When you combine the players initial intent to fold and the comments of the bystander I would rule the hand dead in the best interest of the game.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-28-2005, 10:19 PM
Sparks Sparks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 33
Default Re: What would the ruling be?

Although the person threw his hand face down in a forward motion, it did not touch the muck, and it did not cause action behind him. Therefore, I'd say the hand is probably still live. The fact that another player caused him to retrieve his hand might not be enough to kill the hand because it is not an example of the generally understood "one player to a hand" rule.

If I were the floorman, I think I might let the hand be retrievable. Note that the dealer is NOT supposed to push a pot until all hands have been killed, which usually means taking folded hands and bringing them into the muck. The dealer had not killed the hand yet.

Sparks
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.