So then as a practical matter, how do you resolve the situation as a dealer? Help the player to properly table the hand by spreading the cards or telling him/her you must show two to win?

Unless there is a specific house rule that states how cards have to be tabled, the player did properly table the hand by putting both cards face-up.

Therefore, the dealer should do the exact same thing he does with every other tabled hand.

In case the dealer doesn't know that both cards are face-up, he should move the top card to confirm.

Dealer could ask the player to seperate his two face up tabled cards to showdown his hand. That would take less than 10 seconds and would result in the best hand winning that WAS NOT mucked. Time well spent IMHO

OK fine, I'll play along with your stupid semantics game if that's really what you want. You said that a properly tabled hand is both cards face up on the table. The problem with saying that the OP contains a properly tabled hand under that definition is that the top card isn't on the table; it's on the other card.

What we have in the OP is one card shown. The reason the thread is interesting is it isn't clear whether the guy with the jack is intending to forfeit his claim to the pot.

Regardless of whether we use your stupid semantics definition of tabled, my stupid semantics definition of tabled, or the reality of the situation--which is that only one card has been shown--we need further clarification before moving forward.

That's why the dealer spreads the cards. This is not hard.

The whole point that others and I are trying to make is that intention does not matter as soon as both cards are face-up. You can't table your hand and then forfeit your claim to the pot. An accidentially tabled hand is still a tabled hand.

Where it would get interesting is if the player said something that might be interpreted as verbally conceiding the pot before tabling his hand.
Exactly.

If a player tabled their hand in a way that one or both of the cards landed face up, but on the pot, would you be making the same argument?

How much of the "covered" card has to be visible in order for it to be "tabled"? If the second card's rank and suit are clearly visible, it's a tabled hand but what about if only the rank is visible? What if part of the rank is visible but you can't tell if it's an 8 or a 3? What if you can identify it by the number of pips in addition to a partially visible rank and suit?

I guess I can understand why floors would just the hand live.

Now that you've changed your definition from two cards face up on the table to two cards face up, I'd agree that under that definition the guy with the jack's hand is tabled. But under that definition it also would be tabled if the dealer had seen both cards while he was showing them to his neighbor. So I don't like that definition as much.

I wouldn't have made that argument at all if madlex hadn't insisted that the definition of tabled is two cards face up on the table and then said that one visible card face up and one card underneath that card is a tabled hand.

I'd prefer that the dealer ask, "Is that a fold?" to give the player the opportunity to concede his/her claim to the pot if that's what he/she intended. But I wouldn't argue against dealers spreading out cards as a matter of procedure.

Are you generally OK with a dealer mucking a tabled hand if the player doesn't want to claim the pot or just in this or similar instances?

If we say that a player is allowed to table his hand and decide after that if he wants to have the pot, I think asking "Is that a fold" would be perfectly fine. Otherwise I disagree, because the player isn't allowed to concede his claim to the pot after tabling his hand.

I think we both know that dealers shouldn't muck tabled hands. This thread is about whether one card face up with another card underneath it is is tabled hand.

You say it is a tabled hand if the card underneath is face up. I say there's something else that needs to happen in order for it to be a tabled hand.

From the OP (as I read it) both cards are tabled face up , but the top card obscures the bottom card. What is the problem ( or is there a problem) with revealing the second card by the dealer or player? The player declared a set and even showed cards to other players. He obviously misread his hand. If he mucked , well too bad for him, but he did not physically muck his hand by the OP. Nor did the OP say he said "fold" or whatever. I still think this is a classic "cards speak" situation that saves the pot for the caller.

Since nobody has mentioned it, here’s what RRoP has to say:

Bolding is mine. Now, I don’t approach Robert’s Rules as prescriptive gospel, but I really disagree with the majority in this thread. All cards have not been shown, and thus it is not a tabled hand.

I have actually been in a situation where Villain intentionally “tabled” his hand this way. The dealer froze up completely (and I don’t really blame him, as this is probably not a frequent occurrence and he doesn’t want to mess up by violating OPTAH).

Villain eventually spread his cards, and I won as expected. But his hand should have been mucked, and not because I wanted to win on a technicality but because **** that guy. If you want a claim at any part of the pot, then properly table your hand.

The counterargument is that it’s safer and easier for the dealer to treat it as a tabled hand, and I don’t disagree with that. I’d be fine with an initially obscured hand eventually winning, even if it gets there through coaching by the dealer or other players. But it is not particularly fairer, as the hand is not tabled, and I only care that the best tabled hand wins at showdown.

I hope y’all take the above as me quibbling over the definition of a tabled hand and not much else. Typing on mobile.

You may feel the dealer should muck his hand. But in reality to much the hand the dealer would have to move the cards ... Thereby exposing the bottom card.

The dealer should not be playing stupid guess in games. .

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

Here's a quote from the WSOP Dealers Guide 2018. Bolding is mine.

I'm amazed that this is a 40+ post thread.

This is what I've seen happen a million times:

• Players put thier cards down face up.
• Dealer pulls cards in and spreads the hands, roughly in fromt of the players who own them.
• Dealer awards pot to best hand.

Why would this hand be any different?

I just don't want to fall into the semantics of either side here. This is a tough spot for a Dealer whether you want to admit to it or not. Well, maybe not 'tough' but certainly 'touchy' in my world.

1) A player says he 'had trips' and shows a Jack on this Board. Some players call both their sets and trips by 'trips' ... rhombus/square. The only trips out there are 3s in most player's dialog. If the player 'had' trips, he now has a full house.
2) A player is choosing to 'carefully' only show one card. In the majority of these cases a player thinks they've lost the hand and is showing how much they were ahead going to the River. This could be a slow roll as well.
3) A player has shown his cards to other players, but not all players. This opens the door to 'show one show all' in some rooms. Of which could make the hand live in some instances.

As usual, I agree that this may be a 'no brainer' spot and even (as shown) within the Dealer's protocol/guidelines. But as I'm also prone to do, I'm taking the other side of this for the sake of discussion and what I consider a dose of real world v possible protocol.

I'm all for being professional as well, but to me this is a touch robotic for the Dealer. A Dealer should realize that 'something' is going on here and handle this with kid gloves. Let the table figure this one out on it's own and try to avoid either player from getting riled up.

I guess I always error on the side of caution here from the Dealer's perspective. There's nothing wrong with asking Mr. Jack what he's doing .. muck or show. Certainly if this is a slow roll Mr. Jack will protect his cards with vigor and show them to win the pot. If he truly doesn't know he's won the pot with a Full House the Dealer gives him an opportunity to verify his muck.

The stance being taken is that he can't muck a tabled hand, even if he's only showing one card, as long as the Dealer is pretty sure the bottom card is face up. There's nothing wrong with the Dealer asking for permission to do something he already knows he can do. It puts the decision on the opponent, not the Dealer.

The issue is that I do believe a player still has a right to muck here, even if that bottom card is face up. I respect that in rooms where the Dealers have guidelines that they are to 'take over' the showing process in this spot that it's going to happen. The Dealer absolves themselves by getting verification of the muck by the player. If the player later realizes he mucked a winner, then the Dealer simply explains that he double checked by asking and that he must show two cards to win a pot.

Sorry .. in a bad mood after a bunch of PLO suckouts tonight .. but I think this spot is not as easy as 'of course' ... GL

I see two cards laying there...I'm gonna spread them.
If it's two face down cards they get mucked.
If it's two face up cards I read the hand.
If it's one up and one down I turn the other card down and drag them to the muck.

Sure, it's just not yet tabled. Do you all think a hand that is intentionally shown this way cannot be untabled? Player turns both cards face-up on the table with only one card exposed and with the intention of keeping it the unexposed card hidden. Cards speak here anyway?

A player doesn't put cards this way with the intention of keeping the bottom card hidden. A player who doesn't want the card seen puts it out face down.

I have never seen a player do this when the intention wasn't for a dramatic reveal either to slow role or just waste time....



Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

We were not there so anything is possible, but since he thought he was beaten, showed his hand to other players, declared a set, then laid down his cards face up ( bottom card obscured) I doubt he was making any kind of move besides mis reading his hand. I don't think this particular hand should be untabled. Cards speak on this particular hand I think. Just my opinion.

This is exactly how the dealer should handle it with one exception:

I prefer the dealer to ask if the player is mucking when it is one up and one down because some noobs don't know that they have to show both and I hate to put a bad taste in their mouth when they're new to casino poker.

All this stuff about the dealer not spreading the cards is gobbledegook. Just spread em, read em, and push the pot.