Are accidentally exposed cards and intentioanal considered equal, in RRoP?

[Lottery Larry]

The War-Lord thread, and the WSOP exposed card thread, made me go review the site's copy of RRoP



ROBERT'S RULES, from the Home Poker Rules post

"12. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game. A card that is flashed by a dealer is treated as an exposed card. A card that is flashed by a player will play. To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it. A downcard dealt off the table is an exposed card.

6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished."


Now, my questions to the group are:

a) Does rule #6 above ONLY apply to intentional actions by the player, in showing cards? Or does everyone interpret this rule as saying that accidental showings (i.e. flashed card, by the player) have to be treated in the exact same way, as if the flashing was intentional?

b) Does everyone interpret these rules as stating that accidental flashings, by a player in the hand, should be immediately followed by the peeker having the player expose the card and play with it face up?

c) Which interpretation encourages more angleshooting- the "flashed by player, peeker gets it exposed to table", or a post-hand method of revealing information?

This wording, for me, was especially troublesome, as it seems a bit vague:

"To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it"

Is "a player" supposed to be THE player, the one with the card, and not anyone else? Or does this portion of the rule indicate that the peeking player has the right to get the flasher's card replaced?

Actually, I think this rule only applies when the dealer is flashing the card, correct? So, perhaps it's not problematic after all.. though I don't know how the player will get a "okay, swap the card" ruling unless there's a peeker, as well... ?

[War-Lord]

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

The War-Lord thread, and the WSOP exposed card thread, made me go review the site's copy of RRoP



ROBERT'S RULES, from the Home Poker Rules post

"12. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game. A card that is flashed by a dealer is treated as an exposed card. A card that is flashed by a player will play. To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it. A downcard dealt off the table is an exposed card.

6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished."


Now, my questions to the group are:

a) Does rule #6 above ONLY apply to intentional actions by the player, in showing cards? Or does everyone interpret this rule as saying that accidental showings (i.e. flashed card, by the player) have to be treated in the exact same way, as if the flashing was intentional?

b) Does everyone interpret these rules as stating that accidental flashings, by a player in the hand, should be immediately followed by the peeker having the player expose the card and play with it face up?

c) Which interpretation encourages more angleshooting- the "flashed by player, peeker gets it exposed to table", or a post-hand method of revealing information?

This wording, for me, was especially troublesome, as it seems a bit vague:

"To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it"

Is "a player" supposed to be THE player, the one with the card, and not anyone else? Or does this portion of the rule indicate that the peeking player has the right to get the flasher's card replaced?

Actually, I think this rule only applies when the dealer is flashing the card, correct? So, perhaps it's not problematic after all.. though I don't know how the player will get a "okay, swap the card" ruling unless there's a peeker, as well... ?

All good questions
I'm happy to see that we are trying to get to the right answers

Larry I just want to say, i bow to you Sir
I do agree with your views, belive it or not I do
i just think that we all need to know what is correct, weather we choose to play that way is another thread completly

But thank you for trying to get to the bottom of this, I LOVE THIS STUFF

I like being the person people say "hang on lets ask Rob, he'll know, and or if he doesn't he'll find out for us"

Cheers to knowledge

[mac40k]

Here's my take, FWIW.

Rule #6 only applies when a player intentionally exposes his cards to another player.

The house has an obligation to ensure fairness of the deal, so cards accidentally exposed by the dealer to one or more players should be shown to all.

A player has the obligation to protect his hand. The house cannot be held responsible for players inadvertently exposing cards to another player. Rule 12 specifically says that a card flashed by a player will play, not that it is treated as an exposed card.

[mattiasnyc]

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

Now, my questions to the group are:

a) Does rule #6 above ONLY apply to intentional actions by the player, in showing cards? Or does everyone interpret this rule as saying that accidental showings (i.e. flashed card, by the player) have to be treated in the exact same way, as if the flashing was intentional?

I believe that's where the dispute is. We don't interpret that the same way.

I think the most reasonable and perhaps even implied interpretation is that the rule refers to intentionally shown cards, not accidentally flashed ones.

I also think that RROP clearly makes a distinction between the following three terms, and they do not appear to be synonymous with each other;

"Show" (as in "showing a card")
"Flash" (as in "flashing a card")
"Exposed" (as in "an exposed card")

That's why I suspect that rule #6 refers to intent and not accidents.

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

b) Does everyone interpret these rules as stating that accidental flashings, by a player in the hand, should be immediately followed by the peeker having the player expose the card and play with it face up?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. I understand the argument on both sides, but I think the worst case scenario is worse with that rule in place, i.e angle-shooting.

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

c) Which interpretation encourages more angleshooting- the "flashed by player, peeker gets it exposed to table", or a post-hand method of revealing information?

The former.

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

Actually, I think this rule only applies when the dealer is flashing the card, correct? So, perhaps it's not problematic after all.. though I don't know how the player will get a "okay, swap the card" ruling unless there's a peeker, as well... ?

Yes, I think it applies to the deal.

[War-Lord]

Originally Posted by mattiasnyc

I believe that's where the dispute is. We don't interpret that the same way.

I think the most reasonable and perhaps even implied interpretation is that the rule refers to intentionally shown cards, not accidentally flashed ones.

I also think that RROP clearly makes a distinction between the following three terms, and they do not appear to be synonymous with each other;

"Show" (as in "showing a card")
"Flash" (as in "flashing a card")
"Exposed" (as in "an exposed card")

That's why I suspect that rule #6 refers to intent and not accidents.



I don't think that's reasonable at all. I understand the argument on both sides, but I think the worst case scenario is worse with that rule in place, i.e angle-shooting.



The former.



Yes, I think it applies to the deal.

I think you guys are on to something here

if the player exposes his card accidentily or otherwise he needs to "keep" those cards - ie no dealer replace etc.

but now the questions is - what if 1 or 2 people seen the card when player A dropped his on the floor

Player A has to keep it - ok got that
here is a paste from RRoP
2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.

but my question is why is ok for 1, 2, 3 or 8 (all players except me and the guy who dropped the card) to know that card, this seems highly unfair

So here is another scenario
one guy shows his cards to the live player to his right, intentionaly
RRoP says that this is against poker etiquette - Revealing the contents of a live hand in a multihanded pot before the betting is complete.

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

Ok so I found this rule
6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished.

From this is seems that if your are in the pot and a card becomes expossed, "any player has the right to see those exposed cards" and seems to say "that if you are not in the pot/hand etc. then keep quiet till after the hand is over
again this is about a player that "shows" a card

but does this rule here not imply that both requirements are met
so player screws up and exposes his own card

2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.

even though it was not intentional his hand is now "fouled" someone has seen it - the card that is

so if the player has the onus to protect his hand, and he does not, is this not the same as intentionaly showing it ? ( I mean obv. it is NOT the same, but would the "rules" not see it as the same)

because that rule is very clear
6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished.


bottom line for me is simple
for what ever reason other than dealer error - your card is seen by a live player, all live players need to share in that info (this is very clear)

intent or failure to protect your cards are really one in the same for me
someone who knows the rules would just "accidentaly" expose his card to his buddy on his right, and say "oops sorry, it slipped haha, I don't have to show I didn't say hey Jim look what I got, it was not intentional hehe"

Although rule #6 does state "if you show", the fact that the rules say this is what should happen for all other players at the table is hard to ignore

We need to get RHBergman & BAinGA & Guinness in on this
Bergman can give us some very cool adaptaions
BAinGA can give us the "true" don't hold crap back definitive answer
Guinness can give a few examples of how it went down, and who's balls got stepped on etc.

You guys rock

[mattiasnyc]

Originally Posted by War-Lord

my question is why is ok for 1, 2, 3 or 8 (all players except me and the guy who dropped the card) to know that card, this seems highly unfair

It's unfair no matter what you do. The only real important question in my mind is which is the least bad choice.

Like I said, my guess is that the potential damage is far greater with the ability of a player to force a card to be shown to all, than with the possibility of a player seeing another players card by mistake.

Originally Posted by War-Lord

Ok so I found this rule
6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished.

From this is seems that if your are in the pot and a card becomes expossed, "any player has the right to see those exposed cards" and seems to say "that if you are not in the pot/hand etc. then keep quiet till after the hand is over
again this is about a player that "shows" a card

but does this rule here not imply that both requirements are met
so player screws up and exposes his own card

That's not how I read it. When it says "show" I read it as an intentional showing of the cards, not a "flashing" of the cards by being careless. I don't think it's only about IF a card is exposed, but how and why it was.

The next rule you point out I think is really talking about the player protecting himself against getting his cards tossed by the dealer:

Originally Posted by War-Lord

2. You must protect your own hand at all times. Your cards may be protected with your hands, a chip, or other object placed on top of them. If you fail to protect your hand, you will have no redress if it becomes fouled or the dealer accidentally kills it.

even though it was not intentional his hand is now "fouled" someone has seen it - the card that is

I don't think that's what it says at all. To me it seems to simply say that once you get your cards, in order for your hand not to be killed by the dealer (fouled), it's up to you to protect it. Has nothing to do with you flashing or intentionally showing a card(s) at all. I think the rule simply doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by War-Lord

so if the player has the onus to protect his hand, and he does not, is this not the same as intentionaly showing it ? ( I mean obv. it is NOT the same, but would the "rules" not see it as the same)

because that rule is very clear
6. If you show cards to another player during or after a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during a deal to a player not in the pot should only be shown to all players when the deal is finished.


bottom line for me is simple
for what ever reason other than dealer error - your card is seen by a live player, all live players need to share in that info (this is very clear)

Like I said, I read it as talking about intentionally showing your card. That's how the term "you show" reads to me.

For example:

"2. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game. A card that is flashed by a dealer is treated as an exposed card. A card that is flashed by a player will play. "

I think it's safe to assume that he presumes that the dealer flashes a card unintentionally. And later in the same paragraph then talks about the same thing, unintentionally flashed cards by players. I.e, "show" and "flash" aren't the same thing.

Originally Posted by War-Lord

intent or failure to protect your cards are really one in the same for me
someone who knows the rules would just "accidentaly" expose his card to his buddy on his right, and say "oops sorry, it slipped haha, I don't have to show I didn't say hey Jim look what I got, it was not intentional hehe"

Ok, but collusion is already not allowed. With a rule that says that a card must be exposed to all if anyone claims to have seen it the rules themselves "forces" the "success" of a cheater, if you know what I mean. As soon as a person claims he saw a card, that card must be shown. That is then a guaranteed success for the cheater. The rules just enabled this. Taking advantage of a flashed card depends on other players being careless.

Originally Posted by War-Lord

We need to get RHBergman & BAinGA & Guinness in on this
Bergman can give us some very cool adaptaions
BAinGA can give us the "true" don't hold crap back definitive answer
Guinness can give a few examples of how it went down, and who's balls got stepped on etc.

I'm fairly new here; who are these people?

[mattiasnyc]

From HomePokerTourney:

Intentionally showing cards

You are not allowed to show any of your cards during poker tournament play.

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 15 - Tournaments

21. Showing cards from a live hand during the action injures the rights of other players still competing in an event, who wish to see contestants eliminated. A player may not show any cards during a deal (unless the event has only two remaining players). If a player deliberately shows a card, the player may be penalized (but his hand will not be ruled dead). Verbally stating one’s hand during the play may be penalized.

For a first-time offence, giving an offending player a verbal warning is probably the most appropriate course of action. However, if this is a recurring problem, or very blatant, a time penalty (10 minutes?) might be appropriate. A player must post blinds but is not allowed to play a hand during a time penalty.

If a player does intentionally show any card to any player ...

Roberts Rules of Poker. Section 3 - The Showdown

6. If you show cards to an active player during a deal, any player at the table has the right to see those exposed cards. Cards shown during or after a deal to a player not in the pot should be shown to all players when the deal is finished.

This is known as the "show one, show all" rule.

So at least on this site the interpretation seems to be that the rules in question are talking about intentionally showing the cards at which point they must be shown to all players.

[Biceman]

I played in a tournament at the Venetian where a player was given a 10-hand suspension for turning over her cards. It was clearly a moment of confusion, not an intentional attempt at getting a read on an opponent or anything, but the act of turning the cards face up was definitely not accidental. Basically she raised pre-flop, another player asked how much she had left, she counted out her chips, he tanked, then called (the initial raise), and thinking that he was calling the amount that she had counted out (due to the time elapsed and her excitement from holding pocket aces) she turned her cards over. The floor was called, they played out the hand, and she had to sit out one rotation (10 hands).

That being said, they did not take any action if cards were exposed because they flipped over as a result of catching on the edge of the shuffle machine or anything "accidental" like that.