Answers to Let's Play Floorperson - Part III

This is the last column in a series in which I asked you, the reader, to play floorperson. These columns have been very interesting for me as a writer, because of the number of responses I have received as well as the different opinions expressed in those responses. Having already covered situations No. 1 and No. 2, let's get right into No. 3 and No. 4.

The Game: $3-$6 Hold'em

The situation: Three players see the river; Player A bets, Player B calls, and Player C raises. Player A, not realizing that Player C had raised, turns over his second-nut flush. Player B immediately mucks his hand. The dealer, thinking Player A was folding but showing what a good hand he had, mucks Player A's hand. Player A immediately objects, but is informed by the dealer that he had not called the raise.

Your job: Decide what Player A's intentions were, and make a decision.

One of the readers responding to this situation thought Player A should be allowed to call the raise, stating, "It seems that this was very unfair to Player A, and that he should have been allowed to act, even though his hand was exposed and Player B had already acted."

Although it may seem unfair, Player A has a responsibility to act accordingly, in turn. When Player C raised, Player A had three options: fold, call, or raise. Player A turned his cards faceup, causing Player B to act behind him. At this point, Player A had caused the action to pass him, making his hand dead. In this situation, it seems as though there is no harm in allowing Player A to call the raise, but remember, decisions need to be consistent, and this situation with different circumstances would call for the same decision.

The Game: $1,000 Buy-In Pot-Limit Hold'em Tournament

The situation: A player in first position has moved all in and is called by the small blind and the big blind.

The flop is delivered: The small blind bets and the big blind calls.

The turn is delivered: The small blind checks and the big blind checks.

The river is delivered: The small blind bets and the big blind folds.

The small blind pulls back his bet and proceeds to muck his hand. As soon as he releases his hand, the dealer informs him that there was an all-in player, but the hand has reached the muck and is not retrievable.

The floorperson is called over to make a decision. He is given the facts by the dealer and makes a decision that the all-in player is to receive the main pot, as he is the only player with a live hand. The player in the small blind disputes this because of the fact that the all-in player was hiding his cards. The floorperson asks the dealer and the other players if the player was indeed hiding his cards. No one can confirm it, and the decision stands.

Your job: Decide if this was the correct decision. If not, what would you have done differently?

I will leave this one to Russ Holland. Russ wrote: "Protect your hand until the pot is awarded. I believe that the correct decision was made here. Players need to remember that while the dealer is always trying to do the best job he can, there are times when he will make a mistake. That's why it's critical to hold your hand until the chips are in front of you."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you to everyone who responded with comments and decisions. I would have preferred including more responses in the last three columns, but I didn't want to spend too much time listing different opinions. I originally called the decisions controversial, and from the different responses I received, I would still label them as such. Until there is a standard poker rulebook in all poker rooms throughout the world (which there never will be), there will continue to be different decisions made from room to room and floorperson to floorperson.

Editor's note: Michael O'Malley can usually be found playing online at partypoker.com as Rzitup. To learn more about him, go to www.rzitup.com.