The only thing we need to clarify is what ruleset you are talking about. What you describe about needing to show in the order of all-ins is NOT the RRoP rule, if all action completes before the river.

You keep talking about a distinction between no action on the river with chips behind vs not, but there is no such distinction in RRoP. They both show in position order, unless side pots, in which case is position order within each side pot, outside in.

There is no ruleset I can refer you to ... It's just the way it is as an exception to RRoP that has taken my rooms by storm. I've never seen, going WAY back to HSP, where the SB is the first to show regardless of previous action.

When I first started playing live rooms tried to enforce this rule but it was always met with player animosity. But then they over did it when they wanted to chase down the 'last aggressor' from previous streets and that also created situations that would slow the game down. So the 'dual' rule is now in place. No action on River (w chips behind)=show in turn, action=last aggressor first. GL

I am totally cool with you saying that this is how your local rooms do it.

I do not agree that this is how most rooms do it though, or insinuating that it is what RRoP means except for bad wording. I do agree that RRoP wording is ambiguous, but I think it's meaning is clear upon inspection and well agreed upon my most rules folks.

I don't have any real data to support my position either. But As you should know by now, your local rooms do a lot of screwy things. You should probably not use them as a basis for asserting how most rooms do things.

I think there needs to be a clear method in place and the rule gives us a 'clear' method should it 'really' come down to players refusing to show and the Dealer needed to call a Floor in.

This is not local, unless you consider Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Vegas, Windsor, Toronto and every stream I've ever watched as being local.

We can call it more of an 'understanding' than a rule then .. very clear if the Floor is called in, yes .. agreed upon in practice, no. This 'last aggressor' ideal is out there and should be written into the rules. But since there is really never an issue with getting 'somebody' to show their cards changing the rule seems moot. GL

I understand that it may be the accepted practice in some rooms, maybe even most, I don't know. However, the rule is very clear to me that if there is no action on the river then players show in order starting with SB (unless of course there is a side pot).

I was actually called to a table not that long ago for a stand still because neither player wanted to show and wanted to know who HAD to go first. This is what brought up the debate with my supervisor.

As for my ruling...

I stated the rule and instructed the first position player to show and when the other player saw he was beat and mucked, I instructed the dealer to turn his cards face up and I said "please don't hold up the game with this nonsense in the future. Everyone is encouraged to show without delay." I don't think he liked that much, but neither did I like to be called to the table for such a terrible waste of every other player's time. First time in my career that a floor had to get involved for a who shows first decision.

I don't understand. The first player is supposed to show and refuses. And you tell the second player he's the one holding up the game? And more than that you punish him by making him turn his hand face up?? Isn't this really bad etiquette?

"If everyone checks (or is all-in) on the final betting round, the player who acted first is the first to show the hand. If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. In order to speed up the game, a player holding a probable winner is encouraged to show the hand without delay."

The second player mucked, so it's unlikely he viewed his hand as a probable winner. It doesn't look like he did anything wrong.

Maybe I'm not understanding the rules correctly, though they seem pretty clear.

Because when you encounter a dick that won't turn up his hand the best course of action is to just turn yours up and keep the game moving. If you don't then you join your adversary in dickdom. So be the smaller dick, just turn your hand up.

I'm not arguing whether the player should have turned his hand up, just the punishment aspect of this ruling.

I can see maybe telling BOTH players not to hold up the game, but telling just one player, particularly the second to act player who technically did nothing wrong, seems messed up, and especially making him turn up his hand when he mucked.

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending, or barring a violator:

Telling anyone to turn a hand faceup at the showdown."

Obviously this is talking about players, but it doesn't seem right for the floor to do it either without a good reason.

Okay, so you're one of those guys.

See rule #1.

Ya you are:

He did do something wrong.

It's fine. It lets him know he is wrong and deters him from doing it again.

omg dude.

Although by rule he did not have to show, I took it upon myself to invoke the IWTSTH rule for his opponent. I essentially made it clear that if you hold up the game that long, you will be showing your hand no matter what. I'm in the just show your goddam hand already camp. There is never a situation where you should have to get the floor involved in a who has to show first battle. Ever.

Thanks for the explanation. I just wanted to know your reasoning.

----------

Didace, I didn't mean to be one of "those guys" whatever that means. I was just confused by Suit's ruling given he seems to use RRoP and my understanding of RRoP is limited.

Albedoa, I'm not going to engage.