Does player have to show or not?

Four of a kind

This situation happened last night at a tournament I ran:

Player A in SB bets on the river. Player B calls.

Player A shows his hand, but player B mucks(as he as beaten)

Player A then kicks up a fuse and calls me over for a ruling, stating that Player B "MUST" show his hand.

I stated that player B called the bet and therefore was entitled to see his opponents hand, but was not oblidged to expose his own hand since he was the player who called.

Player A then started mouthing off that that was NOT the correct rule and that all the major organisers in the country would make player B show his hand?????????

Am i missing something here??

jackhack

Player A who was first to bet usually shows his hand first unless his opponent has the nuts and would be obliged to table first or he would be accused of slowrolling. If player B sees that his hand is beaten I don`t see anything wrong with him mucking his hand here. Without being sure I would think the rules would state that this is a showdown so all hands should be tabled but I see it very often where the losing hand mucks and have never seen someone to argue it.

Lplate

As it's showdown, player A has the right to ask to see player b's hand. He also has earned the right to be told that he is a prick for doing so!

Four of a kind

my take on this is that Player A made a bet on the river which player B called(maybe for informational purpose), and once he saw he was beat(as player A was called and had to show first) he mucked his hand. Therefore because he called the bet he's not oblidged to show his hand, unless its the winning hand obv.

Player A said that my ruling was for a "five card draw".. tournament(where ever he got that from!) and thats not the ruling BigSlick poker and paddy power would have given.

So if Neill Kelly is reading this post, whats your view?

I showed the player in question my rules and in relation to the rule regarding show of hands.:rolleyes:

tricky D

Most of the time B just folds and the game moves on. However, Player B can be compelled to show the hand. As the hand has been declared as folded, the dealer takes the cards and taps them on the muck so that they are truly dead and then turns them. The reason for this is to prevent collusion hence the killing of the cards by tapping on the muck in case the hand would have been the winner. It's considered bad etiquette to use this rule unless collusion is suspected.

Four of a kind

tricky D wrote: »

Most of the time B just folds and the game moves on. However, Player B can be compelled to show the hand. As the hand has been declared as folded, the dealer takes the cards and taps them on the muck so that they are truly dead and then turns them. The reason for this is to prevent collusion hence the killing of the cards by tapping on the muck in case the hand would have been the winner. It's considered bad etiquette to use this rule unless collusion is suspected.

Ok, well collusion was'nt the case here, so player B should not have to show his hand?

RocketRonnie

This is one of the most common asked questions here!!

There seems to be a few different versions, depending on where you go!
The most common rule seems to be, because it's a showdown if Player B's cards can be retrieved from the muck they should be tabled at Player A's request!

Then what happens if Player B mistakingly folded the winning hand? Is their hand live again because it has been tabled or is it only live if it hasn't actually touched any of the mucked cards??

pkr_ennis

Interesting post, I can't decide what the story is here. My initial instinct is that B doesn't have to show anything, but I'm not sure. I mean, why would he have to show? What reason could be given for making him show? The showdown is over when he concedes the pot. Collusion is not the story here b/c A wouldn't want the table to see B's hand if it's a winner as this would obv bust the colluders. I can't imagine a single instance for B to have to show his hand here, plus, he could literally grab the muck and push his cards in there anyhow and the hand would never be revealed.
I'm gonna post on 2+2 and see what the Vegas guys come back with.
C
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/tournament-ruling-701552/
pfapfap is a prolific and trusted poster at 2+2.com. I know he knows the craic. Just a nonsense from the guy angling for more info.

bp_me

Four of a kind wrote: »

Player A shows his hand, but player B mucks(as he as beaten)

Player A then kicks up a fuse and calls me over for a ruling, stating that Player B "MUST" show his hand.

I don't see anything in TDA rule set that says a calling player must show except in an all-in situation.

Four of a kind wrote: »

Player A then started mouthing off that that was NOT the correct rule and that all the major organisers in the country would make player B show his hand?????????

I ask player A if he/she is saying "I want to see his/her hand" and caution that as the person laying claim to the pot that cards would be live again. This is my understanding. It's not a situation I often see. I will talk to some people about it later and see what the consensus on this is.

The alternative here is for the dealer to be unable to identify which two cards player B mucked. This is my preference to be honest. Life is very simple when you can say "I have 45 cards face down in front of me. I don't know which two belong to player B".

Four of a kind

bp_me wrote: »

I don't see anything in TDA rule set that says a calling player must show except in an all-in situation.



I ask player A if he/she is saying "I want to see his/her hand" and caution that as the person laying claim to the pot that cards would be live again. This is my understanding. It's not a situation I often see. I will talk to some people about it later and see what the consensus on this is.

The alternative here is for the dealer to be unable to identify which two cards player B mucked. This is my preference to be honest. Life is very simple when you can say "I have 45 cards face down in front of me. I don't know which two belong to player B".

Thanks.

Welruc

Is it a rule that because player A bet and player B called that player A should show first?

bp_me

deuceswild wrote: »

Is it a rule that because player A bet and player B called that player A should show first?

Yes