5

In tournament heads up, pot is 16000... river gives player A top straight who bets 4000, while Player B who has lower straight pushes allin 4800. Player A who has 5000 chips left thinks the bet is covered and reveals the nuts. As the dealer is passing the chips to player A, another player on the table disputes the decision because player A did not announce a call. After some deliberation with management, the decision to award the chips to player B was given. Was this the right decision?.

3
  • player A did he have the nut straight?
    – Jon
    Apr 20 '15 at 17:41
  • Did player A show his hand and then throw it into the muck? The way it's written, the hand never really ended because player A never made any action. The dealer should have provided more guidance here. Apr 20 '15 at 18:01
  • How could it be heads up if there is another player on the table?
    – paparazzo
    Sep 18 '17 at 11:28
2

This was a terrible decision, and no competent poker floorman would ever have done that. The game is heads-up; a player has every right to show his cards at any time, and does not lose any privileges by doing so, because there is no third party to be affected.

The dealer should simply have reminded the player "you haven't called", and been allowed to call (or fold)--assuming his opponent still had cards.

3
  • While I agree with Lee, it should be noted that in tournament play many poker rooms have a rule that says you cannot show your cards until the action is done. Head up are not, does not matter, the penalty is a dead hand.
    – Jon
    Apr 20 '15 at 23:18
  • Yes, there are places with that house rule, especially in tournaments. But when the tournament itself is head-up, it's really stupid. Apr 20 '15 at 23:23
  • I would rate it a little less stupid then really stupid. The rule does have the upside of keeping the tournament moving a little better by deterring those long conversations where a guy is trying to talk a tell out of an opponent. Also it is a good move if your not sure of your opponents hand that some (weaker?) players consider a shot.
    – Jon
    Apr 20 '15 at 23:30
1

If a player exposes his hand with action behind him. The hand is dead.

In this particular situation, there are 2 important things to note.

1) There was no more action left in this hand. The only decision left was from the player who had the action on him.

2) The hand was not exposed with the intention of inducing a reaction.

So, IMO, The hand should NOT have been mucked.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.