Strictly the Rules - Or the Spirit of the Rules? What ruling would you make?

Recently, an interesting situation came up in our regular pot-limit Omaha game. While interesting, it almost broke up our game, because the action was down for at least 15 minutes, and the people involved in it were very hot. And not just that, it was a situation that somewhat embarrassed the brushes, because they had to withdraw their initial decision because of the uproar at the table. And in the end, it was still unclear whether or not the proper decision had been made. So, what happened?

The Situation:

We are playing in a $500 buy-in pot-limit Omaha game with quite a few action men, big gunners who are not afraid to pump up the pot every now and then, and especially early in the hand. There have been a few raises and then the shortest stack at the table, John, goes all in before the flop for $480. His neighbor Dave, who is down quite a lot and has just bought in for another $500, goes all in for this amount, and the two players near the button (James and Patrick) call the $500. James still has $200 left, and Patrick has $400 or so. The dealer, however, does not notice that there is still money to be played. Assuming that everybody is all in, he places the flop on the table, and immediately after that, the turn card, as well; that is, he doesn't wait for James and Patrick to either bet or check on the flop.


Now, John – who is one of the all-in players – immediately jumps in on the situation, shouting, "Hey, there is still money to be played! No one has acted yet on the flop, so the turn card is invalid. It has to go back into the deck and then James and Patrick have to make their decisions on the flop. This card cannot play!"


James and Patrick then respond, "Well, yes, we haven't acted yet, but we both don't have that much money in relation to the total size of the pot. In fact, we probably would have checked down the hand anyway."


John doesn't accept the turn card, though, claiming it's illegal to say check, check when one or two players are all in, and that no matter what they do or don't do, the turn card cannot play and has to be reshuffled into the deck. After all, this is the rule: Whenever the dealer opens the turn card prematurely and there is still money left or people haven't acted yet, this is considered an invalid card that has to go back into the deck. Now, of course, in limit poker this is a standard procedure; often, the floorman doesn't even need to be called to the table. But how about big-bet play? Should this rule apply here as well, and if so, under what conditions? Does the rule apply to this specific situation, or are there other things that should be considered? Is John right, or may he be trying to take advantage of a rule that seems to be covering the situation – when in fact it doesn't?


My View


I have always been an advocate of looking at the psychology of situations when making decisions. In this case, there was more than $2,000 in the pot, with a flop of Q-10-7 with two clubs. Both James and Patrick are pretty knowledgeable players, but they are also fairly loose and not the type of people who like to push their edges. This means that in big pots with relatively little money left, they often will be friendly to each other, saying things like, "OK, let's just save this final bit of money," or, "Well, I know I win, but the pot is large enough for me." While some may say that this is against the rules and that soft-playing should not occur, it is just their way of being friendly, and they certainly aren't trying to gain any kind of edge (even though, of course, the all-in players would prefer that they play hard, as it would increase their chances of winning the pot). What's more, with a flop that offers as many drawing possibilities as this one does, it is clear that any bet will be called, because with a pot size of more than $2,000, they would never fold for a mere $200. (In fact, both James and Patrick had caught a fairly good flop, and neither of them would have even considered folding for this amount. However, for the sake of discussion, I will leave their hands for what they are, as it may be hard for a brush to determine whether or not a player should call for a certain amount with a certain hand, and even if the player should call, whether or not he in fact would call.)


Anyway, probably the most compelling argument against putting the turn card back into the deck may be this: Even though John is not an angle-shooter by any means, he immediately acknowledged that the only reason he objected to the turn card was the simple fact that he didn't like it; it was a third club, creating a possible flush that he didn't have. If he also would have objected to a good card for him in the exact same situation, he would have had a much stronger case, in my opinion. He tried to change the turn card because it was bad for him, knowing full well that the two remaining players had no bad intentions whatsoever, and that both James and Patrick would never complain about the turn card, whether it helped them or not. Now, this would give John, as snooker players call it, a "shot to nothing": If he liked the card, he could keep it there, but if he didn't like it, he could have it replaced. In my opinion, this would give John an unfair advantage over the other players, who wouldn't even think of replacing the card. So, I think removing the card would have been a bad decision – even though, strictly according to the rules, it would have been correct.


Some Additional Viewpoints


I know that it may be a bit too much to ask from dealers and brushes to get inside the heads of the players to analyze their thought processes, to take into account the amounts of money left in relation to the current pot size, and to analyze player characteristics before making a decision. What's more, in the unlikely case that they would be able to do all of this correctly, how could another brush come up with the same decision if this exact same situation came up another day? And if they decided not to put back the turn card because of the reasoning I gave (the amount of money left is fairly insignificant in relation to the total pot size), when exactly would the remaining amounts become significant – when they each have $600 left, or more than that? All of these things are probably reason enough to simply rule according to the rulebook (a turn card opened before completion of flop action must be scrambled back into the deck), rather than try to analyze the situation enough to come up with what would be the most reasonable solution right now.


However, in the situation described here, it is also clear that the rulebook provides a great opportunity for angle-shooters to take advantage of people who don't always know the exact rules, and are vulnerable to making an honest mistake every once in a while. Strictly according to the rules, the turn card would have been invalid if both James and Patrick had only one $10 chip left, and an angle-shooter could easily claim, "There is still money to be played," even though it is customary to just forget about the small change left and simply declare all in, as well. In cases like this, if brushes decided strictly according to the rules, angle-shooters could simply "steal" some huge pots they are not entitled to, and this would in my view be an unjustified punishment of the players who are acting with goodwill but are somewhat lax when it comes to the rules. In my opinion, any decisions that tend to favor people who point to the rulebook only when it's in their best interest, while punishing the people who may be a bit sloppy but who don't have any bad intentions whatsoever, are bad decisions.


Some Final Words


Now, I am fairly certain that John wasn't really shooting an angle here, even though he may have been trying to bend the rules just a little bit, or maybe trying to point to a general rule when he was fully aware of the psychology of the specific situation. In fact, one might claim that John, correctly so, was simply fighting for his rights. After all, he did have the rules in his favor. Also, I know that there is much to be said for having simple rules and adhering to them strictly, rather than taking a look at all kinds of circumstantial factors that may be very hard to analyze. Having said that, I do believe in justice, and when decisions are made that go against the spirit of the game, I don't think that's just – even when, strictly speaking, the decisions are correct.