Video Replay

An interesting hand, and ruling, took place recently at the EPT event in Barcelona. The great thing about this particular situation is that it was videotaped, which usually isn’t the case when it comes to interesting decisions. I love the fact that we as a poker community get to see some unique situations come to life via video. The discussions that followed this particular situation were interesting, as every armchair tournament director voiced an opinion regarding what the correct ruling should have been. It’s too bad that all such rulings aren’t videotaped from table level; we could have tournament directors going to the replay, as referees do in the NFL.

Here was the situation (search “Roland DeWolfe and Tobias Reinkemeier” on YouTube to see the video yourself):

Roland DeWolfe and Tobias Reinkemeier were the only two players involved in the hand on the river. On a board that read A 10 7 9 4, Roland made a large bet. Tobias thought for a short time before making the call. Roland, holding the K 8, believed he couldn’t win. He showed the K, and then slid it back facedown under his other card, waiting for Tobias to show his hand. There is some dialogue between the players that is inaudible, but from what is heard and can be inferred from watching the video, Roland repeatedly tells Tobias that he has king high, and Tobias repeatedly tells Roland, “Show both cards.” Tobias doesn’t show his hand. Eventually, Roland slides his hand forward, where it reaches the pot, which has the burn cards placed underneath it. As soon as Roland’s cards touch the pot/muck, and before Roland can even release his hand, the dealer takes the two cards and turns them faceup. Simultaneously, Tobias slams his hand, the Q 6, faceup on the table, and pumps his fist.

Thomas Kremser, a well-respected tournament director, came to the table and ruled that Roland’s hand was dead, and he awarded Tobias the pot. Had the hand not been videotaped, that probably would have been the end of it. But the video allowed for a complete dissection of what happened, who said what, who did what, and how it all played out. I found the video shortly afterward, and immediately started deciphering everything.

There are several elements to this decision. The first, and most important, is this: Is Roland’s hand dead? Roland no doubt made the mistake of not turning up his hand, no one can dispute that. But making a dumb mistake alone does not mean that you can’t win the pot. Roland’s hand was pushed forward, and did reach the pot/muck. But, it was always retrievable. The cards went from Roland’s hand to the dealer’s hand. There was never any doubt which two cards were his.

There are many similar situations in which a player intends to muck, and goes as far as mucking, but still is eligible to win the pot. Intending to muck does not translate into “dead hand.”

In my opinion, Roland’s hand was live, and he should have been awarded the pot.

A caveat to all of the above is that there apparently is a local rule there that if a hand crosses “the line,” it is considered dead. Obviously, this would have an impact on the decision, although I think this type of rule is dangerous and ineffective.

Let’s assume that you don’t agree with the arguments above, and still believe that Roland’s hand was dead. Here is another argument in support of awarding the pot to Roland. Contained in the rulebook of almost all major tournaments, and in Robert’s Rules of Poker (a well-respected standard rulebook), is the following:

Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent’s hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused. If a player other than the pot winner asks to see a hand that has been folded, that hand is dead. If the winning player asks to see a losing player’s hand, both hands are live, and the best hand wins.

Roland showed Tobias one card, and Tobias responded by telling Roland to show both cards. In my opinion, that was a request to see Roland’s hand. At that point, the dealer should prevent Roland’s hand from being mucked, which is what he did. Assume for a minute that Tobias had the winning hand when he finally turned it over. According to the rules, the dealer is supposed to stop Roland’s hand from going into the muck, turn it over (per the request of the winner), and show it to the table. That’s what happened; it just so happens that Roland’s hand was the winner.

Based on the above, Roland should have been awarded the pot.

Lastly, let’s look at the actions of Tobias. He made a hero call on the river, and when Roland showed a king, Tobias knew that he couldn’t win. So, instead of mucking his hand like he was supposed to, he told Roland to show both cards. Why would he do that, when he knew that if Roland showed, he couldn’t win? Two possible answers are: He was trying to shoot an angle by feigning strength, or he wanted to mentally needle Roland.

I wouldn’t rule against Tobias based strictly on his actions, but it is worth noting that, like Roland, he was not completely innocent in this situation.
In this case, the ruling went against Roland because the tournament director had to make a quick decision based on what the dealer told him. I don’t think, given the situation, that it was a bad decision. But, after being able to look at the video and watch the actions of both players, I think the correct ruling was to award Roland the pot.

Mike O’Malley is a director with PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected].