Show One, Show All

Jim Brier, who is my co-author of Middle Limit Holdem Poker and has been a Card Player contributing writer, told me about an incident he recently observed regarding the poker rule "show one, show all." It happened at a Las Vegas casino that was hosting a no-limit hold'em poker event. He was not in the game, but was in the casino near the cardroom when an argument broke out and a ruling was needed. Here is how he described the incident:

A lady who had a king-high flush draw plus some other possibilities was facing a bet on the turn in a multihanded pot. One opponent was all in and another opponent had made a bet large enough to put her all in. As she was thinking, the all-in player showed his hand to the player next to him (who had not been in the hand). The lady wanted to know what cards were shown, saying, "Show one, show all." (No doubt, she was particularly interested in whether the all-in player possessed the nut-flush draw. As it turned out, he did have a flush draw, but it was smaller than hers.) The opponent who had bet of course objected to the hand being shown to her before she made a decision. A floorperson was called over. He said she was not entitled to see the cards before acting on her hand. The lady's husband was with her, and strenuously objected to the ruling, as did the lady herself. Jim asked me if I thought the ruling was correct.

Poker is supposed to be a game in which one player is not to be favored over another. "Show one, show all" arises most often when a hand is over and one of the players shows a hand to another before discarding it. The dealer is supposed to show the hand to the whole table so that one person is not privy to more information than his opponents. Some places instruct the dealer to show the hand only if someone objects to it being shown to another player, but I have never heard of a cardroom that prevented the dealer from showing the cards if requested to do so. As far as I know, "show one, show all" is a universal poker rule.

If a hand has been shown during play, rather than afterward, matters can become far more complicated. Here is how my own rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker, addresses the situation:

"If you show cards to an active player during a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during or after a deal to a player not in the pot should be shown to all players when the deal is finished."

I told Jim that the house had made the correct ruling, because the cards had not been shown to an active player in the pot. It would be a violation of the bettor's rights if he did not have access to the information revealed by the all-in player at the time he bet, but she did when deciding whether to call. Frankly, it is so clear for her not to have information about an all-in player's holding on a critical decision that common sense should dictate that she act without getting info from another person in the game beforehand. She is entitled to eventually find out what the hand was, whether it had been shown to someone or not.

Of course, an all-in player should not be showing his hand to someone else before all the betting on that deal is over. According to Brier, some cardrooms nowadays will rule your hand dead if you show it while play is still going on.

This incident got me thinking about other circumstances in which a hand could be shown to someone before the betting was over. Maybe the wording in my rule needs to be improved. For example, suppose a bettor who had moved all in saw the all-in player's hand after betting, but before another opponent had acted. Should the opponent be entitled to know the hand's contents before acting? I don't see why the opponent should get that information. Assuming the bettor did not get the information before moving all in, why should the opponent now have access to it on a round of betting where someone else did not have access to it and will never be able to use it to make a decision?

Let's change the situation. Suppose the wager is a cap in a limit poker game, so the betting on that round has been closed once the opponent acts, but there is more betting to take place on subsequent rounds. I still think the information should be concealed until that betting round is over; then, have the hand shown to both players before the next betting round gets under way. The principle is obvious. The bettor derived no benefit from seeing the information on that betting round, so the opponent is not entitled to benefit from it. If possible, "show one, show all" should not interfere with the normal course of the betting in a game. The cards should be shown before the deal is over only if a player would be at an unfair disadvantage during the play.

I think these two hypothetical situations are clear-cut. The problem comes when there might be more betting on that betting round. (I do not think it makes a difference whether the game is limit or no-limit.) Do we argue that the bettor made one action on that betting round without knowledge of the hand, so the opponent must also take one action before the hand is shown? Even though this sounds like it might be fair, I do not think it is a practical way to go. For example, there might be enough money left for only one more wager. Then, the bettor might get to act using the knowledge of the all-in hand, whereas the opponent never gets to use that information. It should not be up to the decision-maker to calculate whether there is enough money left for one more bet, two more bets, or whatever. So, it is more practical to make the "show one, show all" rule apply at the time the hand's contents are revealed anytime the betting on a round has not yet been closed to the person who received the unauthorized information.

Here is how I now think the rule should be worded:

"Show one, show all. Players are entitled to receive equal access to information about the contents of another player's hand. After a deal, if cards are shown to another player, every player at the table has a right to see those cards. During a deal, cards that were shown to an active player who might have a further wagering decision on that betting round must immediately be shown to all the other players. If the player who saw the cards is not involved in the deal, or cannot use the information in wagering, the information should be withheld until the betting is over, so it does not affect the normal outcome of the deal. Cards shown to a person who has no more wagering decisions on that betting round, but might use the information on a later betting round, should be shown to the other players at the conclusion of that betting round."

I am now using this wording in my rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker. The rule is admittedly lengthy, but will greatly assist anyone who needs to make a ruling in this type of situation. The dispute discussed earlier illustrates that a rule should do more than produce the right ruling; it should be stated in such a manner that everyone can see that the ruling was proper.

Those rulebooks using only the terse sentence "Show one, show all" are seriously inadequate for handling all of the problems that might arise when applying the rule. A decision-maker might have less common sense than the person who made the ruling in that Las Vegas cardroom dispute. Also, the decision-maker would like the rule to have language covering the specific situation that has arisen, so the ruling is accepted as correct.

The great Chinese philosopher Confucius said, "Better to have wise men than wise laws." My observation is, we don't always have wise men, so we need wise laws – particularly when it comes to poker.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone's latest book is Middle Limit Holdem Poker (332 pages, $25 plus $9.95 shipping and handling), co-authored with Jim Brier. MLHP and his other poker books, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker, can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. E-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get Robert's Rules of Poker for free. He is an "expert" on the RoyalVegasPoker website and an advisor for the ChecknRaisePoker website (opening soon).