This is similar to the recent thread where a player was in the process of muckng his cards at showdown, a player asked what he had, and the player turned over his cards, showing a winner. But this new case differs in a key aspect

There are 3 players in the hand at showdown, seats 6,7,and 8, the 3 seats to the immediate right of the dealer. Seat 7 is new to live poker, seat 8 is seat 7's friend. Dealer announces showdown. Seat 6 tables his hand. Seat 8 tosses cards in and dealer mucks them. Seat 7 flashes seat 8 his hand and tosses them forward face down, which positions them in front of seat 8.

Dealer immediately reaches to muck seat 7's cards, but seat 8, being closer to the cards, also immediately puts his hand out in front of dealers hand and exposes seat 7s hand. Seat 7s hand beats seat 6s hand. Dealer stops and calls for the floor.

What's different here is that neither seat 8 or 7 said anything at all while this was happening. So unlike the other thread, there was no "what did you have" or iwtsth involved. Seat 7 made no effort to retrieve his cards. Seat 8 just exposed someone else's hand before the dealer could get to it.

What do you think the ruling should be? I'll post floor decision later.

Edit. It is a cash game.

Seat 6 gets the pot.

Seat 8 gets a reprimand.

The reality is it is room and floor dependent. Many will chime in with an opinion or quote the latest tournament rules... But it sounds like a cash game. I assume since the cards never were "mucked" into the pile that the floor ruled the hand live.???

I think the correct ruling is to award the pot to seat 7. That said in this rare instance I’d be perfectly fine with a “best interest of the game” ruling to kill seat 7s hand and award the pot to seat 6.

If seat 8 isn’t also totally new to live poker, I would kick him out for the night and tell him he’d get permanently banned if that ever happened again.

Angus has it right.

7 did nothing wrong. You can’t punish him for having a poor choice in friends.

Hand was live and tabled.

I might do something to placate 6’s correct anger. I am very close to giving 8 balance of the night off.

Seat 7 gets the pot, his hand was tabled. Seat 8 gets disciplined, depending on his past history, either a warning or an 86 for the night.

I think the main issue is whether rules permit anyone to table any players hand, or if only the player whose hand it is can table a hand, in order for that hand to be considered properly tabled and live. After looking through the rules, I believe a player must table his own hand. A hand tabled by another player would not normally be considered tabled and live. I dont believe the rules ever intended for a player not in the hand to be able to override the actions of the player in the hand and change who wins the pot.

So the question is, is it"any tabled hand" speaks and is live, or is it "any hand tabled by the player whose hand it is" speaks and is live.

RROP states:

Note that the verb is in the active form, a player must show HIS cards..., Indicating that the player with the cards must conduct the action of showing. Its not the passive form, i,e, the cards must be shown... which would leave open the question of "shown by whom?

The TDA rules state:

Note it says "players may change their minds and table cards...". Obviously the player referenced is the player who originally decided to discard the cards in the first place It is not some outside player who has the right to table the cards and undo the actions of the player whose cards they are.

I think these rules show that a hand must be tabled by the player whose cards they are in order to be live. So in this situation, that player discarded his cards and made no effort to retrieve or table them. Therefore a third party player cannot change the winner of the hand by intervening in the hand. I dont think anyone would believe another player should have that power.

So I believe seat 6 should be awarded the pot.

Angus said Seat 6 gets the pot.

Player 7's hand was not dead. You cannot allow another player to kill Player 7's hand. You can argue that Player 7 has not tabled his hand (though the hand is now tabled), but it seems beyond pedantic to require player 7 to touch his hand or to flip them over and then table them.

So, bottom line, player 7 has a non-dead hand that is tabled, and it is the best hand.

Player 7 gets the pot

So what happens if you go all-in, I say call and flip over your hand? Do I win by default because you didn’t table your own hand?

Any rule where you can kill another players hand by just flipping it up is bad in my opinion.

Well you could ask player 7 if he is showing his cards now. The rule clearly does not say that the player has to perform the physical action of flipping over the hand himself.

I’ve see a dealer flip over a players hand after a preflop all-in in a tournament before dealing the board. That hand was live and nobody tried to argue otherwise.

I agree with you, and I agree that the rules support that ruling.

However, the same interpretation of the rules would make it impossible for a player to table his hand if it is tabled by someone else before he has a chance to do anything. I reconcile this by holding that a player cannot be deprived of his initial option to table his hand.

It's not that a hand is killed simply by flipping it up, as in your example of reaching over and flipping over his cards. Rather, in my OP, the player has already actively chosen to discard his cards and relinquish his claim to the pot. Another player shouldnt be able to overturn that simply by flipping over his cards.

I believe the rules do state a player must turn over his own cards.

[ While not proper procedure, in a tournament hands MUST be turned up before play continues. Mucking a hand after going all in In a tourney is actually prohibited and a dealer should prevent it from happening

Oops my bad. Still say 7.

Seat 7's hand is dead imo. Maybe rule it a violation of one player per hand rule.

Or you could say the hand was all ready mucked, and player 8 exposing them did not make them live.

There should be a couple of different ways to rule it that work. The concept that player must table their own hand is also eligible and did not qualify in this circumstance, as discussed in previous posts, is reasonable.

Ideally player 8 gets stern warning and is forced to take 10+ minute break.

Until the cards are in the muck and unidentifiable they are live. If you allow 8 to kill 7 hand by flipping you are depriving 7 of they opportunity to turn the cards over and table his hand.

How do the rules define a tabled hand? Particularly, do the rules say how they the cards get turned face up? I dont recall they do. Tabled as I recall is defined as face up on the felt.

If you invoke OPTAH you are still punishing 7 for 8’s actions.

You certainly can say the hand was already mucked, but you are changing the definition of mucked.

There are many ways the rules could be changed to account for these actions. But until those rules are in place we go by the rules currently in place.

This requires too much interpretation by the dealer or floor. Very simple question-at the time that player 8 flipped player 7's cards, were player 7's cards dead? If player 7 had stopped and flipped his own cards instead of player 8, would his hand have played?

Here are 2 ways we can look at the situation:

1. Player 7 hand was live, but he failed to protect/table his hand in a proper manner, resulting in his cards immediately being ruled dead when player 8 flipped them over. If player 7 flipped them himself they would have been live.

2. Player 7 hand was considered mucked and dead the moment he sent them face down to villain 8, and therefore villain 8's subsequent actions were moot.

Does player 7 suffer harm in either of these situations? - no, not really. He would not have had any claim to the pot without player 8s action. Any harm he may suffer seems outweighed by the larger benefits of protecting game integrity.

I hate this argument as justification for awarding player 7 the pot.

Trying to kill someone's hand, or peeking at cards they mucked without permission are grounds to immediately be banned from a game.

Even if player was ok with it, players are always supposed to table their own hand - the dealer isn't allowed to do it and neither should other players.

Why should floor provide player 7 extra protection or in this case, a freeroll from his friend, because of some half-baked hypothetical situation that could get player 8 permanently banned from the game?

"
1. Player 7 hand was live, but he failed to protect/table his hand in a proper manner, resulting in his cards immediately being ruled dead when player 8 flipped them over. If player 7 flipped them himself they would have been live."

Do you understand how bad a rule this would be?

What freeroll is he getting?

Based on the players sitting next to each other, it’s likely that player 7 could have reached his cards to table them himself if he wanted to.

What would we do if player 8 doesn’t table the hand but physically blocks the dealer from doing so while yelling at player 7 to grab his cards and flip them up?

As mentioned before, I have no problem with awarding the pot to player 6 based on what’s in the best interest of the game. He should have won that pot if player 7 is incapable of reading his hand. What I am no fan of is interpreting the rules in a way that gives players the ability to kill another players hand by simply flipping it up.

So, if a player tables their hand and says 'I missed' but didn't notice the backdoor straight, they should lose the pot because he misread the hand?

The standard should be pretty easy for who won-is the hand live, and is the hand the best tabled hand. Saying 'it is the best hand that the player was able to read' is really not in any rule set that I know of. Since Player 7 was not facing action, his inability to read his hand and intent to discard is immaterial.

Best, live tabled hand wins. Player 7's hand is live. It is tabled. It was the best hand

No, because that responsibility moves from the player to the dealer once the hand is tabled.

I’m not saying the best tabled live hand shouldn’t win. I’m saying that I am OK with declaring the hand dead before it was tabled because doing that might be in the best interest for the game. I’m generally OK with the latter if there’s a justifiable interpretation of the rules leading to that. Even if I don’t agree with that interpretation of the rules.

To me, this starts making cut and dried decisions very grey by trying apply intent or just rewards to black and white matters of rule. Saying that you are OK, in some cases, of the best tabled, live hand not getting the pot because the player couldn't read the board, but in others, the best tabled, live hand should get the pot, even if they misread the board is a little too subjective in my opinion. I suppose you could use rule 1 to justify anything, but I worry what happens the next time a guy is tanking, holding a card funeral, and the guy next to him gets impatient and flips his hand over.

There are very simple and well known tests to apply here
1. Did the player fold? No, he can't fold at showdown
2. Did the player muck? No, the cards were not yet mixed unidentifiably into the muck
3. Is the player's hand tabled? Yes, both cards are face up, flat on the table, and visible
4. Is his hand the best hand? Yes

I am all for 86'in Player 8, but I don't see anyway to justify not giving player 7 the pot without changing the rules in ways that can be very exploitable and abusive