An Important Poker Rule

I recently received an interesting rules question via e-mail from a fellow in Ireland who runs a poker game there.

“I run a small poker club in Dublin, Ireland, and have a small but loyal group of customers. If you could find the time, I’d like your answer to this: It’s at the showdown, and there is no more betting. Player A gently throws his cards facedown onto the table. The other two players place their cards faceup, at which time Player A stops the dealer from taking his cards, then turns them faceup, revealing the winning hand. Both of the other players insist that Player A has folded and cannot claim the pot. Player A says that he mistakenly placed them facedown, and believes that he has won the pot. Based purely on the rules, what should the right decision be? I would really appreciate any insight that you can offer.”

Here was my answer: “Cards thrown away when not facing a bet and not causing action behind the player, as at the showdown, can be reclaimed when the hand is clearly identifiable. However, I looked through my rules and found, to my surprise, that this is not explicitly stated, but is deducible only by negative inference. Here is a rule from my rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, that might be used.”

The rule I referred him to was this: “Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game.”

I was not happy that my set of rules had such a wimpy approach (for lack of a better term) to this vitally important issue. During play, it is essential, for the pace of the game, to have a strict rule that a player facing a bet who says “fold” or throws his hand away cannot reclaim it. When the betting is over in a hand, the objective is to have the best hand win the pot, if possible. I do not think it should be at “management’s discretion” whether the best hand is declared the victor. The job of management is to make sure that what is declared the best hand actually is the best hand. A hand needs to be clearly identified as the cards held by the player, so it is management’s job to verify this identification. But artificial and overly rigid criteria for verification leads to the best hand being disqualified even when everyone at the table knows that it was the exact hand held by the player. Let’s look at an example:

At the showdown, Player A says, “Straight,” and Player B discards his hand facedown, using a forward motion, without showing it to anyone. (Player A is a senior citizen who is known to misread a hand, rather than some kind of angle-shooting sharpie.) Then, Player B sees that Player A does not hold a straight, but has two pair. The dealer reaches out and takes the discarded hand to put it in the muck. Player B brings it to the attention of the dealer and the table that he has the winning hand, saying, “Wait a minute, there is no straight. I have a bigger two pair.” What should be done? Here are some possible ways to treat this situation:

(1) Have the dealer turn the hand up, saying, “This is still a live hand, because it is identifiable as the player’s hand.” Then, the dealer awards the pot to the player with the best hand.

(2) Have the dealer call a floorman immediately, leaving the player’s hand facedown.
(3) Have the dealer turn the hand faceup, identify it as the best hand, and call a floorman if Player A wishes to contest the pot.

My opinion is that (2) is the best procedure to use. Many players would have a fit if the dealer took command in a controversial situation like this one, as in (1), instead of calling a floorman. The dealer is not supposed to make this kind of decision. Furthermore, as a person who makes a good part of his living from player tips, it is not in the dealer’s best interest to make such a decision. The floorman (normally, the shift supervisor) is paid to handle a tough situation like this, so let him earn his money. Once the decision-maker has been called, a situation should be frozen, rather than have the dealer do any more on his own, so turning the hand faceup, as described in (3), is an inferior and improper way to go.

Let’s suppose that the dealer behaves competently and immediately calls for a decision. The shift supervisor comes over to the table and listens to the dealer’s explanation of what happened. He gives the two players involved the opportunity to comment on the factual information conveyed by the dealer. Then, he decides who wins the pot. Which of these comments by the decision-maker seems to be the most appropriate to you?

“In our cardroom, we have a rule that any hand discarded in a forward motion is dead. Player A gets the pot.”

“In our cardroom, we have a circle drawn around the inside of the table, which determines whether a hand is alive or dead. The hand was discarded into the circle, so it is a dead hand. Player A wins the pot.”

“In our cardroom, once you release your cards and they are taken by the dealer, he is required to put them into the muck. The hand must be killed, so Player A wins the pot.”

“In our cardroom, a hand is live at the showdown as long as it is verifiable. Turn the hand faceup, and award the pot to the best hand.”

To me, the last statement best reflects the modern attitude of awarding the pot to the best hand whenever possible, and is the only proper way to handle such a situation. Here are my comments on each of the inferior alternative choices:
The “forward motion” rule likely began in California, and originally pertained to wagering in limit poker. It now has been applied in some cardrooms to folding at the showdown and wagering in limit poker. I think the rule is dubious even in its original setting, and is clearly out of place in both no-limit betting and folding at the showdown. Making a no-limit player bet the full amount into the pot if he does not announce the wager size is simply too strict. Chips should be considered a wager only when they are released into the pot. Also, having a rule that kills a hand the moment the player releases it is not compatible with having the best hand win the pot.
Using a betting line for wagered chips is a good idea, but creating a dead zone for cards folded at the showdown is too strict, and is not compatible with the idea of having the best hand win the pot.

We ought to have a clear policy everywhere that the best poker hand should win at the showdown whenever possible, rather than putting artificial barriers in the way of achieving that goal. ♠

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered (autographed to you) from Bob by e-mail: [email protected]. Free U.S. shipping to Card Player readers. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons at a reasonable rate. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert’s Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.