Playing by the Rules, Part 1

   When I play poker online it's all very simple: no-one has to actually shuffle or deal cards, there can be no mistake about how much you are trying to bet, showdowns, folds and the awarding of the pot are all done automatically. But when I'm playing live games (which is most of the time) and dealing with real cards and real chips, things can sometimes get tricky. Even when playing at the casino, where the play is according to a standard set of rules and the cards are dealt by a professional dealer, there can be occasional disputes (see 'The Deep Stack Tournament', 26 Feb). And in the games I play most often, pub or club games where the players do the dealing and there is often no set rules other than a few that have been verbally stated, things can get very tricky indeed. Here are a few examples of what I mean:
The Missed Split
   A while back I was at a table where the dealer missed the fact that the best hand was actually 'on the board'. There had been substantial betting by two players and player 'A'  showed two pair versus the other player's lesser hand, and started raking in the pot. Then an observer who was watching the game pointed out that there was a straight on the board and it should be a split pot. An argument broke out which was fuelled by the fact that player A was also the tournament director. He was saying that the observer had no right to interfere in the hand as he wasn't involved and wasn't even sitting at the table. I think player A accepted that the pot should be split but he had a lot to say about players 'interfering' in the game, and even threatened to penalise the observer if he did it again.
   I had to put my 2 cents worth in here and point out that standard poker rules declare that players are obliged to point out errors in reading hands or in the awarding of a pot. I neglected to mention that the rules are referring to dealers and other players, and don't actually mention bystanders. But I figured that the intent of the rules is clear: any mistake in the awarding of a pot needs to be corrected, and if that correction comes from a 'railbird' then so be it. Strangely enough, a similar situation happened a few months later, involving both the same people. This time around 'player A' didn't complain so much, so I guess he had a change of heart.

The Muck Shuffler
   I was the dealer in this hand but, because of the situation, was unwilling to take control and ended up being an observer. I was playing in a tournament that was part of a poker league that I wasn't usually involved with. So I was playing in a room full of strangers and I wasn't aware of the usual procedures followed by this group. I was at an oblong table, sitting in the middle and I'd folded along with a number of other players. There were still two people in the hand and as I was dealing out the board cards the player opposite me pulled in all the folded cards and starting 'washing them' (moving them around) face down on the table. I thought this was an odd thing to do but, given the unfamiliar situation, I let it go. As the hand drew to a close one player threw his cards forward, thinking the other player had folded, only to find that he still had live cards. Then some of the muck cards, which were still being shuffled around on the table, touched the two folded cards. That's when the argument broke out.
   Most of the players at the table knew each other and were arguing back and forth about whether the folded cards were still live. Eventually they called over the tournament director (TD) who asked a number of people what happened and decided that the folded cards were dead because they'd touched the muck. The verdict seemed to be that he could still have played them if they hadn't touched the muck. No mention was made of the fact that it was actually the 'moving muck' that touched the folded cards. This was a very odd incident and my unwillingness to take control when the muck shuffling started only made it worse. The question of whether folded cards can be retrieved in some circumstances comes up quite often, as can be seen from the next two examples.
The Showdown Fold
   This incident happened when I was getting short-stacked in a tournament and pushed all-in. The player across the table from me was thinking of calling and all my attention was on him. Eventually he folded and, thinking I'd won the hand, I threw my cards into the muck. Someone called out that there was another player in the hand who was yet to act and, realising my mistake, I immediately grabbed my cards back. That's when the argument started. The discussion went on for some time before the TD was called over to make a ruling. After consulting another neutral player he finally ruled that my hand was dead and the last player in the hand was awarded all my chips, eliminating me from the tournament. I was not happy.

   I spent some time after this going through the Tournament Directors Association Rules to see what they had to say, but it seems to be a bit of  a grey area that is covered by several different contradictory rules. I did find a YouTube clip of a similar incident at the WSOP. In this case the TD ruled that the second player hadn't called the original bet so the all-in player got their stack back. However there seemed to be a lot of negative online feedback from players about this decision. I think that if I was the TD in this situation I would probably invoke rule 1 and make a decision based on the 'best interests of the game and fairness'. Provided that the mucked cards were '100% identifiable' (which they were), I would have allowed the all-in player to retrieve the cards and given the second player the option of calling or folding. But then again, maybe I'm biased.
The Face-up Fold
   One of our regular Friday night players got very upset when the decision went against him in a similar situation. I wasn't present but I heard about it later, at great length. Apparently 'S' was involved in a big pot and at showdown he misread his hand and, thinking he had lost, threw his cards face-up into the muck. Then someone pointed out that he had a bigger hand than he'd realised (I think it was a back-door straight). Now I didn't see what actually happened, so I don't know whether he initially tabled his cards or not, but I suspect that he didn't. So the question is, if the cards have gone into the muck, even though they are still clearly identifiable, can they still be played? Myself, I'd tend to go with the 'fairness' principle and allow the best hand to win the pot. But the TD ruled that once the cards were in the muck they were no longer live. The player involved didn't take it well and was vocal in his disagreement. In fact, he was still going on about it several weeks later.
The Premature Show
   A few weeks ago at my regular Wednesday night game there was a controversy over an all-in hand that occurred just before the break. There were 4 players in the hand when one went all-in. 'E' had a big stack and she now pushed all-in over the top. Then she flipped her cards over, even though there were two players yet to act. Apparently she was very keen to go outside and have a smoke, and didn't seem too concerned about giving the other two players free information about her hand (she had flopped a flush). Some people were saying that her hand should be ruled dead, as you are not allowed to show your cards while a hand is still active.
   This situation was made worse because our TD had gone home early, leaving one of the regulars in charge. He didn't really know what should be done and in the end he said the hand was still live. The other two players promptly folded. If she hadn't shown then maybe one or both of those players would have called and then been knocked out. If the hand had been ruled dead then one of the other players would have won the pot and who knows who would have been eliminated, if anyone. After the hand one of the other players asked me what I thought and I said that E's hand should have been declared dead. Later on, after consulting the rules, I realised that the hand should probably have been live, but that E should have been penalised. The problem with that is that you just don't see penalties being applied in these pub games. It just doesn't happen. So there's really nothing you can do about this sort of situation.
The Vague Bet
   Playing in a tournament a few months ago I saw a hand where the TD did actually consult the rules to decide what to do. Player 1, who was short-stacked, pushed all-in, then 'J' said 'I call you all-in'. The other players who were yet to act wanted to know if he was calling the relatively small all-in bet or putting his big stack all-in. J said his intention was to go all-in, but some of the others said it should be only a call. The TD was called over and he consulted the Tournament Directors Association Rules, which stated that non-standard bets that could have two possible meanings should be be interpreted as the lower amount. So J's bet was ruled to be a call, and play carried on.
   It just goes to show how simple things can be if you actually have a set of rules to play by. Of course, some of the earlier examples are actually a bit harder to resolve, even with a set of rules. But in my opinion, the most important rule is rule number 1: 'The best interests of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision making.' Sometimes you can get bogged down in technicalities and forget that the most important thing is fairness. But having a set of rules to settle issues in the first instance would certainly help.