Heads up, the board is KJ383, with the river completing a flush. There is a bet, player says “I hope you weren’t chasing the flush” and calls. Bettor tables a flush, caller says I had trips, holds them so his neighbors can see and tables one J, with what is presumably another J underneath (I wasn’t next to him to see). Does this constitute a tabling with both cards face up on the table, but one card hidden under the other? I am unsure whether the caller intended to show just the top card or if they happened to fall that way, if it makes a difference. Is it okay to say “it takes two cards to win” or something similar or is that violating OPTAH?

If I were a player not in the hand, I'd keep my mouth shut. If I were the dealer, I'd keep my mouth shut as well until the player pushed the single card forward and I could reach them without leaning/straining to grab them to muck them. Alternatively, if about five seconds had passed and the cards had not been pushed forward, I'd ask, "Is that a fold, sir?"

Hopefully some of the very good dealers and floors who are regulars here will chime in as to how this should be handled in their opinions.

Turning one card face up is not tabling the hand. It takes two hole cards to make a Hold'em hand. All other players should keep their mouths shut. Rapini's suggestion for the dealer's approach sounds right.

Similar thing came up in a local cardroom a few days ago. River completes a four-card straight (899JQ, don't recall exact order), and EP player tables pocket tens. MP player says something like "Two pair is good" and mucks, apparently not seeing the straight. BTN flashes one card to the player next to him (I didn't see it) and then pitches his cards forward face-down.

Dealer pushes the pot to EP, who has already stacked it all by the time BTN goes, "Hey, wait, I had the straight too!" and then flips his ace-ten up. Obvious dealer error in not mucking the hand immediately (he's a new guy, kinda fumbly, lacks confidence). EP refuses to chop the pot on the basis that he already stacked the chips, and the hand was in the muck. BTN asserts it wasn't "in the muck," and it wasn't—just face-down in front of him. Dealer doesn't seem to know what to do and just kinda shrugs until BTN concedes and lets it go. Thankfully not a hothead.

Still not totally sure what the ruling should be there, but it seems like a somewhat similar case.

If it sounds like a slow roll, the dealer should favor the fold.

Does not matter if it was a slow roll or not. Unless there is a specific local rule that this is a dead hand, it is live. It is also now legitimately tabled. Thus it it is a split pot. If early position refuses to split with button, he gets a rack and is not welcome until he does pay. Also KITN to dealer for not immediately and properly mucking ban hand.

As to op ITT, hand not tabled unless it is obvious to dealer that showing both cards, thus a valid table, was players intent. If one card just happened to land covering the other but intent was to table, then all efforts including telling him two cards to pay should be extended. Insta mucking a hand that was intended to be tabled and thus a chop would be horribad.

If the cards are both face up i see no problem with the dealer moving them to make them visible.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

Oh, I misinterpreted something in the OP. If the player put them both face-up (i.e., not one up and one down like people sometimes do), but one just happens to cover the other, it's a live and tabled hand. No real reason why the dealer can't separate the cards to reveal the second jack.

Every definition of "tabled hand" I've ever encountered went something like, "Both cards on their backs on the table". I've never seen an exception for when one card is covering (either partially or completely) the other.

Sounds like a live hand to me.

Well if both cards are tabled face up and the top card simply obscures the bottom card , certainly this would seem to be a live hand to me. I just don't get the possible ruling that the hand was not tabled here. And also BTW best hand wins if dealer uncovers second Jack or asks the player to do so. Player declared trips and shows some folks, so intent is clear. He just misread. Caller should win this one IMHO

+1

I would expect the dealer to separate the cards if tabled face up, as I've seen many many times.

The OP could've ended with Rapini's post IMO ... #1. The hand is live and awaiting further 'instruction' or action from the hand's 'owner'.

In the 2nd spot (thread worthy) it comes down to when that room considers the hand over. It varies from the pushing of the shuffler button or the first shuffle/riffle at a hand driven table ... as long as the room still considers an un-mucked, tabled hand as still live.

So there are a couple of considerations in the second spot. I seen on this sight where the chips are 'technically' in the player's stack and the Floor gives two options .. one, give the player his fair share or two, immediately cash out and leave for 'x' amount of time. GL

I disagree. The player put both his cards face-up on the table. Therefore the hand should be considered tabled without any further player action required.

Now the dealer should do his job, make sure other players are able to see both cards and announce the winning hand.

It would be a totally different situation if one of the cards was face-down on the table. But if both cards are face-up, the hand should be ruled tabled no matter if one card obstructs the view on the other one.

Very picky here, but how do we know the bottom card is face-up? What is the Dealer to do if the bottom card isn't face-up when he separates them? I've seen plenty of one-up one-down moments ...

I think there's enough going on here that the Dealer should verify an attempted muck (fold) or call before moving the cards.

I've also seen moments when a player says 'trips' and means a set. Which in this case means that he doesn't see the paired Board .. yet. This player could have JJ or a very unlikely J3 based on his verbal indication of trips when could mean to say set and should be saying FH. GL

the dealer slides the top card away to see?

Our rule is that if two cards are tabled face up but the view of the bottom card is obscured by the top card, the dealer is to move the top card so that he can clearly see both cards. If the top card completely covers the bottom so that you cant even tell if the bottom card is face up or face down, you do the same thing. You just slide the top card over a little. If it turns out to be face down, you stop and clarify what the player is attempting to do. I wouldnt declare a winner should the one visible card indicate the best hand, and I wouldnt muck them based on one card being face down. Sometimes you get a situation where it is ambiguous and just have to clarify intent. Our rule for winning is two cards face up. But our rule for folding/mucking is two cards released face down. So you just ask before taking an action.

Well first because we were told so in the OP. But it's possible the dealer knows this because he saw the player set it up that way.


The same thing he does every time a player only shows one.

Looks like you just answered your last question.

The point is if dealer separated the cards and one is face down ..... So what it's no different than if the player put them down that way.


Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

I think we all agree that you can’t untable a tabled hand.

Even if a player wants to muck, his hand is tabled and live if both cards are face-up on the table. At that point you can’t say “I don’t want to have that pot” and move on. I am pretty sure most of us have witnessed a situation where a player throws his cards forward in disgust only for them to land on their back and reveal the winner.

So no, in my opinion the dealer should not verify anything with the player if both cards are face-up. He gave up his right to not claim the pot when he put both cards face-up on the table.

I'm just looking out for the Dealer here ...

1) Player didn't realize he had FH and wanted to show his Jack. Dealer uncovers bottom card and reads hand as FH. The look on player's face indicates he didn't realize he won the pot and losing player is now mad at Dealer.

2) Player is attempting a slow roll and Dealer moves things along by uncovering bottom card. Winning player is now mad at Dealer.

Full agreement that the Dealer in both spots could move things along without 'permission' but I think this is one of those times (Showdown) where it's perfectly fine for the Dealer to ask a player their intention for the cards and reduce the potential angst that could be directed at them when it should be directed at the opponent. GL

This is all a bunch of nonsense. The dealer should never clarify that a tabled hand was intended to be tabled. Cards speak.

The thing is, it does not matter. If you intent to muck the winner and table your cards on accident, you win the pot. There's no rule that requires a player to be able to read his hand. If you play with your eyes closed and turn over a winner at showdown, you win the pot.

It's actually a very simple and easy spot for the dealer. He doesn't have to worry about a player's intent (not that he should do that too often anyway) but only about following proper procedure for a situation at showdown where two players tabled their cards.

If a player doesn't want to table his hand, he shouldn't turn both cards face-up on the table. No matter if they are next to or on top of each other.

Player thought he was beaten by a flush. Instead of mucking he tabled his hand face up. This kind of thing happens often enough in live poker. By tabling and not mucking face down he gives the dealer and any players who are paying attention the right to point out the winning FH and push him the pot. Cards Speak. Best hand wins. yadda yadda!

I want to be clear that I understand the bolded to mean that the guy with the jack and the card underneath the jack did not place the card under the jack on the table in a way that it was visible. OP even says it was unclear "whether the caller intended to show just the top card," so there is a scenario in which the guy with the jack intends to show only one card to lament his bad beat/cooler publicly and muck his hand.

If the guy had placed both cards on the table visibly, then there's no point to the thread.

It doesn't matter whether he intended to show both cards or not. If both cards are face up, that's a tabled hand and the dealer will slide the top card over to see if there are two face up cards or not.

Of course, if the bottom one is face down, she's not permitted to turn it face up and that would constitute a muck (no need to ask "are you mucking?"). At best, a dealer can say "Need to show two to win" if she's unsure.

The intent doesn't matter. OP says both cards are face-up on the table with one of them underneath the other one. Putting both cards face-up on the table constitutes tabling them, no matter if one covers the other or not.

Even if the player says that he didn't mean to table his cards, there's no way to untable them. As soon as they are face-up, they "speak". There's no rule that says one card can't be underneath the other one.

Agree with this.

Dealer should separate the cards to avoid confusion. If both are face up, read the hand. If the bottom is face down, I have no problems with the dealing clarifying the situation.