Tourney Ruling needed: All-in hands exposed before all players have acted (1 Viewer)

Gear

Gear

4 of a Kind
Site Vendor
Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
6,055
Reaction score
11,461
Location
Mission BC Canada
Interested in the forum's opinion/ruling on this situation.

I'm going to skip some of the less-relevant details for the sake of brevity, but if I've omitted anything that you think might matter, please feel free to ask for clarification.

It's the middle-to-late stage of a tournament, let's say 8 players at the table for ease of description. (Might have been 7 or 9 but it's not relevant.)

SB and BB are posted, cards dealt, play begins. UTG and UTG+1 fold, UTG+2 limps. Hijack folds, cutoff moves all-in. Dealer folds. Small blind thinks for a short while, then calls. (SB stack is less than cutoff's stack, so SB is also all-in.) BB folds.

Action is now on UTG+2, but before he does anything, Hijack -- who does not realize UTG+2 is still in the hand because he cannot / does not see his cards -- says something along the lines of "well, that's it, turn your hands over." Cutoff and SB both pretty quickly table their hands, in full view of UTG+2, who (along with the actual dealer) immediately wonders aloud what is going on. Cutoff and SB flip their cards back over but the damage is done, so to speak -- UTG+2 has seen both hands.


What happens now?

It's clear that Hijack is at least partly to blame here, for "table captaining" a hand for which he is not the dealer, nor even still in the hand. However, deciding that he's at fault doesn't really help. (Even if Hijack is penalized or sanctioned in some way, it doesn't inform how the hand should proceed.) Cutoff and SB should also bear at least some responsibility for not recognizing that UTG+2 is still to act, and/or for following (incorrect) instructions from someone other than the dealer, no?


Several possibilities:

1. The hand continues, and UTG+2 can act freely, using the knowledge of his opponents' cards to his full advantage. (Cutoff and SB -- sucks to be you. Hijack -- next time, STFU.)

2. The entire hand is declared dead, and is re-dealt with same positions and blinds. (Maybe sucks to be UTG+2? This seems more appropriate if it were the dealer who had called for the hands to be flipped over, i.e. dealer error.)

3. Both Cutoff's and SB's hands are declared dead because they were "intentionally exposed" prior the close of action, and the pot is awarded to UTG+2. (This seems a bit draconian...?)

Any other ideas or rulings?
 
If I had to make an on the fly decision, I'd probably go with

1. The hand continues, and UTG+2 can act freely, using the knowledge of his opponents' cards to his full advantage. (Cutoff and SB -- sucks to be you. Hijack -- next time, STFU.)
 
CraigT78 said:
If I had to make an on the fly decision, I'd probably go with

1. The hand continues, and UTG+2 can act freely, using the knowledge of his opponents' cards to his full advantage. (Cutoff and SB -- sucks to be you. Hijack -- next time, STFU.)
Click to expand...
If I’m in either position, UTG +2 or cutoff/SB, I think this is what I would deem fair and comfortable.
 
I could be wrong here, but here's what I think:

You can't do (2) because once there is action on a hand, it needs to continue. For example, if there is a miss deal and people have started betting/calling before it's discovered, i believe the hand continues.

You can't do (3) because to my knowledge you can never declare a hand dead because of exposure (except if using special house rules). Penalty? Yes, depending on rules and situation. Kill the hand? No.

I believe (1) is correct. I also believe @BGinGA will make an appearance and set everyone straight ;)
 
Every offender must now chug a beer. Last one done is now of the hand. Repeat until 1 player remains.

or

shame on everyone at fault. Hijack for telling players to flip cards. Shame on the dealer not taking the responsibility. Shame on UTG-2 for hiding cards. In the case, I’d rule option 1, and as a host, I’d point out the problems and pass out the beers to chug
 
To be clear UTG+2 did not hide cards, they were in plan view with a card guard on top of them, out front of his stacks. Hijack did not see the cards, but the dealer clearly did.

And yes everyone should have chugged beers until they could chug no more!
 
I can’t speak for the rules which I am sure TDA addresses directly but we have followed #1. Everyone is responsible for their own hand and actions.
 
krafticus said:
Every offender must now chug a beer. Last one done is now of the hand. Repeat until 1 player remains.

or

shame on everyone at fault. Hijack for telling players to flip cards. Shame on the dealer not taking the responsibility. Shame on UTG-2 for hiding cards. In the case, I’d rule option 1, and as a host, I’d point out the problems and pass out the beers to chug
Click to expand...
Some how I knew youd have an excellent response
 
The worst options end up with a redeal or killing someone's hand. Even if there is a table rule that allows for killing a prematurely exposed hand. One can imagine all sorts of angle-shooting this sort of ruling could enable.

I rule UTG+2 can act freely. The players who prematurely exposed their hands are getting a form of natural punishment. There is no need to make the punishment any harsher.

I really wouldn't make too huge a fuss over this except to remind people to pay attention and protect their hand(s). If we conclude that UTG+2 is actually trying to hide his hand, that will need to be addressed but I doubt that is going on. The table captain made a mistake trying to keep the game moving along, no one is a bad guy here.

Remember we are trying to have fun -=- DrStrange
 
The only option is #1. Players are responsible for their actions. Pay attention.

#2 & #3 are not options because live hands, exposed or not, are never declared dead in a tourney.
 
#1 is fine but everyone involved should take a lesson.

1. Don't expose your hand until you are sure it is appropriate

2. Dealer is the one who should be controlling the flow and actions of the hand.

3. Maybe not the issue in this hand but bears repeating that hands in play need to be on the table and in plain view.

Anytime there are multiple "ALL INS" you typically want to slow down the action to make sure all pots and side pots are correct and make sure there aren't any players with chips behind that can still play poker on the forthcoming streets. Exposing cards so quickly was clearly the major mistake here.
 
TDA rules indicate that UTG+2 may act freely. Players that exposed may be subjected to a penalty.

That being said, it's extremely unlikely that I would enforce a penalty here against the players that exposed their cards. The real penalty should go to Hijack - but TDA has no rule for table banter that gets an opponent to make a mistake. Still, I would give Hijack a warning about directing incorrect action that is detrimental to the game. It only needs to be severe enough to make Hijack take one extra look before making a declaration next time.

i.e, "Check it before you wreck it."
 
#1 is the correct action. Warnings to players who prematurely exposed cards before being instructed to do so by the dealer (who has the only authority). Rail penalties might be justified if it's a repeat offense. No hands are ever ruled dead.

Noteworthy that even a TD or the Floor cannot instruct a player to expose their hand -- they should tell the dealer to instruct the player to do so if deemed necessary. Procedural consistency (and chain of command) is maintained that way, so there is less chance of improper exposure of cards.

Also noteworthy that under different circumstances (multiple players yet to act, etc.), those exposed hands should be required to remain face-up until all action is complete, so that all players yet to act have equal access to the information. Even if the exposed cards weren't seen by all, it's in the best interest of the game to not allow only some of the remaining players to act with that knowledge and withhold it from others.
 
BGinGA said:
Also noteworthy that under different circumstances (multiple players yet to act, etc.), those exposed hands should be required to remain face-up until all action is complete, so that all players yet to act have equal access to the information.
Click to expand...
I think this is very important and would often be overlooked.
 
#1 for sure... he has the option to act with the additional knowledge and can either call, fold, or raise if he thinks his hand is going to hold up against all of the others. Keep your mouth shut, unless you are asking questions to clarify and don't railroad the table.
Also, UTG +2 should also be reminded to keep cards in plain sight so that everyone else at table can readily see hands that are still active.
 
You can't sanction UTG+2 based on hijack's action. He must have the right to do anything.

I would rule hijack checked out of turn and is bound by that action if utg+2 checks. As a "spirit of fairness" ruling I would consider ruling hijack cannot raise if utg+2 bets.

The first two players aren't blameless either, they failed in their duty to protect their hands. But their hands should remain live and have all options available. The exposure is punishment enough.

It's tough for me to let hijack off with just a warning, but I tend to think penalties should usually be reserved for repeat violations. This is so egregious though.
 
JustinInMN said:
I would rule hijack checked out of turn and is bound by that action if utg+2 checks. As a "spirit of fairness" ruling I would consider ruling hijack cannot raise if utg+2 bets.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're talking about here...? Hijack folded long before anything exciting happened.
 
Chris I know the situation is unfortunate, but can't see any other ruling here besides option #1.

UTG +2 did not make any mistake and therefore should not be penalized. You could make a case that both the other 2 hands could be ruled dead because they incorrectly exposed their cards, regardless of who told them to do it - but in a home game I think that would be rather extreme.
 
I'd let play continue, make sure both hands are turned back over so that UTG +2 gets to see both equally and not penalize one player more than the other. I'd consider the two flipping their cards to have made the mistake. Hijack shouldn't have said anything, but it's up to those still in the hand to know who's left to act.

#1 only.
 
Gear said:
Not sure what you're talking about here...? Hijack folded long before anything exciting happened.
Click to expand...

Ah my bad, I was reading this as if hijack was active. In that case the big STFU warning is sufficient, but I would definitely penalize if repeated.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the Dealer called for a re-do, SB didn't care, the A.D. said play on, UTG+2 was embarrassed, and didn't say much, C/O said re-do.
The UTG+2 shows QJh and calls. He wins the pot.

Bear in mind, the UTG+2 is also the TD, so any controversy involving himself, he could not make any decision on the hand.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Mike Wells
Cash Game Weird situation in cash game
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
CraigT78
CraigT78
MrSonOfABeech
Late level MTT hand discussion
Replies
11
Views
312
MichaelBubly
MichaelBubly
J
Straight over Straight
Replies
3
Views
378
Legend5555
Legend5555
Nyrhockey094
Cash Game Button and UTG straddle vs. UTG only
Replies
11
Views
361
springbox
springbox
dmoney
What hands should be calling a blind all-in?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
ttowns86
T
Back
Top Bottom