Nit picky discussion on letter of the rule versus clear intent

Daily turbo MTT. Two players to the river. Board paired on the flop. River card makes a flush, no straights possible. Player 1 opens, player 2 shoves, player 1 silently tables quads.

Is this:
1. No action
2. Dead hand, player tabled cards when facing action
3. No action, player to face penalty after hand is complete
4. A call

Would it make a difference if this were a $2k circuit main event vs a $65 daily turbo?

Depends on house rules.

Some places have strict rules that your hand is dead if you expose it while facing action. Others allow for players to expose their hand while heads-up.

It should never be a call.

'Could be' 1, 2 or 3 .. but never 4

It's much more common for this to be an 'issue' during tournament play than cash .. with the most likely scenario being warning/penalty after the hand. #2 was prominent but is much less likely to be the case in a cash game and is almost never the case in a tournament. GL

3 in a tournament. Cash it will vary especially based on stakes, game, players involved and staff interpretation. Often players figure it out on their own.

It is never 2, and would be 3 in almost all places I have played in the last ten or so years. The dealer should ask the player what they are doing. "Are you calling or folding sir (or madam)?"

Dealer: "He raised - are you calling?"

The hand being dead was a thing about 20 years ago.
Almost no games use the rule now.
Action is on the guy with quads. He can call the raise or fold.
He could get a penalry for exposing hand with action pending, but that would be a nit move by the floor.

The hand being dead is still alive in some venues that don't have people familiar with poker in charge. They typically announce this when the tournament begins and probably have it in the find print.

I don't like that (I am old school) I would just say he raised without presenting the option of calling, but I understand I'm probably in the minority in 2020.

Very few, if any, Dealers suggest/discuss/prompt a specific action to a Player without being prompted first. Obv if this was a home game it's possible that the table would be comfortable with the Dealer doing 'some' joking around .. but time is money! GL

This was a casino game in a pretty well run room (Winstar, where I actually played with Mr. Fossilman briefly once). I was the person who tabled the quads. I did so for dramatic effect (not trying to be a jerk, but I just got dealt quads twice in a row and I thought that that was pretty cool). The table was 80% regs for their daily turbo MTT. The other player asked if that was a call, and before I could respond, the dealer said yes, that was a call.

No one raised any objections, and no one asked for the floor. But I have seen floors there kill hands exposed when action behind was possible, so I realized in retrospect that it would have been possible for a very nitty floor to kill my hand.

My intent was obvious, but by the letter of the rule I had not acted yet, and had exposed my hand. The point of the discussion is, for the good of the game, should dealers exercise judgement in cases where intent is clear, or should they always strictly go by the letter of the rule. And should floors be more or less bound by the rules then dealers. Does it matter if everyone knows each other and it is a more fun, less tightly run low stakes turbo meant to draw in new players?

If I were not involved in the hand, I would probably say #3 was appropriate (no action penalty or at least warning to be given).

Because you had the nuts I would guess you would just get a warning for exposing your cards. There is no advantage to be gained with an opponent all-in already.

But if the Floor was a stickler for the rules*, you could get a penalty. Recently I have seen the penalty be 3 hands and not a full round (but I think that might depend on the potential consequences and the cardroom).

In any case it should not have been assumed it was a call. I have seen a guy with the stone cold nuts on the river accidentally say the word "fold" before he said "call" when facing an all-in shove (its a long story, sort of, but the gist of it was the guy was trying to brag about not folding and misspoke). So if the dealer does anything but ask you what action you are taking or call the Floor then it is a OPTAH violation and could be interpreted as bias.

*I believe TDA rules (which apply to MTT's) spell out that turning a hand over does not kill the hand. But there could be rooms that diverge from TDA or that will rule it a dead hand if it isn't the first time a player did it (provided they warn the player previously).

Dealers should not factor in intent. They shouldnt be making decisions like that that influence the game. That's actually what the floor can do, using the "rule 1" that most rooms have that say a floor can make a decision that doesnt follow the strict reading of the rule if he feels it is in the interest of fairness. But dealers shouldnt be invoking rule 1. That's above their paygrade.

This is untrue. I can't think of many examples off the top of my head but there are plenty: one is when a player throws their cards in a folding motion towards the muck (hi, I am faster than you can object and they're going to be irretrievable), or face down and tries to retrieve them claiming "those are my two cards" in the muck. The other common one is when a player tables only 1 card and mucks the other.