Ruling from £50k Gtd at DTD this weekend..

[celtic]

apparently the rules if player 2 would have called then player 1 would have had to match the bet.

[avillan]

apparently the rules if player 2 would have called then player 1 would have had to match the bet.

Player 2 would have had to have called before the dealer mucks player 1 hand - once the hand is mucked there can be no more action (thats my understanding)

[celtic]

yeah i make you right, that info was from player 2 himself. maybe he misunderstood it?

[relaedgc]

People use hand signals all the time for folding, checking or god knows what. Some people slam their cards down and refuse to utter a single syllable in response to your queries, leaving you to reach for the cards in trepidation, whether said player has left them behind the line or in front of it. Others will fling them towards you, at you, with words or without. So yes, there's a lot of assumption in it. I can't speak for the reasoning of the dealer in just madly swiping for the cards but I don't really feel sorry for the player. It really pisses me off when people can't bring themself to say "I am all in." "Check. Okay. Carry on." "I raise." "I pass." and instead just sit there silent and sullen. A lot of the players on the GUKPT circuit will make a point of making eye contact with the dealer and announcing their action. Guess what? They don't have their all in moves interpreted as a fold.

Moral of the story? If you keep the dealer informed of what you're doing, he's less likely to misinterpret and do something that creates as large a furore as this has.

[phatomch]

I give up, its not a all in, because at no point did the dealer accept the all in so it was not a binding bet, bollocks to the table hearing it, its the dealer that runs the table and he folded the player not accepted the all in then mucked em.  So the first action the dealer accepted was fold.

It seems to imply that simon disagreed with ruling but would not (and rightly so) go against the TD for that tournie. Did anyone else get this feeling ?

[boldie]

I give up, its not a all in, because at no point did the dealer accept the all in so it was not a binding bet, bollocks to the table hearing it, its the dealer that runs the table and he folded the player not accepted the all in then mucked em.  So the first action the dealer accepted was fold.

This...it seems very obvious to me. The only reason the guy was made to call was because the players heard him say something..but the dealer didn't..dealer counts..end off.

[gatso]

I give up, its not a all in, because at no point did the dealer accept the all in so it was not a binding bet, bollocks to the table hearing it, its the dealer that runs the table and he folded the player not accepted the all in then mucked em.  So the first action the dealer accepted was fold.

This...it seems very obvious to me. The only reason the guy was made to call was because the players heard him say something..but the dealer didn't..dealer counts..end off.

yeah, you 2 are right. but only if we

a) ignore the rules
b) ignore the fact that the player announced allin
c) ignore the fact that he told the td that he announced allin when he came to make the ruling

[boldie]

I give up, its not a all in, because at no point did the dealer accept the all in so it was not a binding bet, bollocks to the table hearing it, its the dealer that runs the table and he folded the player not accepted the all in then mucked em.  So the first action the dealer accepted was fold.

This...it seems very obvious to me. The only reason the guy was made to call was because the players heard him say something..but the dealer didn't..dealer counts..end off.

yeah, you 2 are right. but only if we

a) ignore the rules
b) ignore the fact that the player announced allin
c) ignore the fact that he told the td that he announced allin when he came to make the ruling

yes please.

[ScottMGee]

Surely the dealer / tournament director have totally ignored rule 1 from the TDA regarding fairness.

Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.  Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.  The floor person’s decision is final.

DTD's actual ruling is appalling.

[avillan]

Surely the dealer / tournament director have totally ignored rule 1 from the TDA regarding fairness.

Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.  Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.  The floor person’s decision is final.

DTD's actual ruling is appalling.

The rules are there for a reason, DTD have made the correct ruling in this case (LIKE IT OR NOT)..

28   Unprotected Hands   If a dealer kills an unprotected hand, the player will have no redress and will not be entitled to a refund of bets.  However, if a player had raised and the raise had not yet been called, the raise will be returned to the player. (This rule clearly covers the offence that was committed of an unprotected hand and has been interpreted correctly - well done to DTD)

1   Floor People   Floor people are to consider the best interest of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process.  Unusual circumstances can on occasion dictate that decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over the technical rules.  The floor person’s decision is final.

However unusual the circumstances were on this occasion, dealer error or not, the infringement wouldn't have happened had the hand been protected. The floor persons decision is final and I applaud the player for accepting the rule that was made.

DTD have 100% got it right and I wish other floor supervisors and td's would take heed as one of my hates is the inconsistency in casinos as you go up and down the country, I've seen rules being misinterpreted to favour the home player in ambiguous situations.

The other problem is that some casino's also have their own house rules that are sometimes conflicting with the TDA, it's up to each individual player to check the rules that are in play before they shuffle up and deal.

I'd rather play somewhere that I know they will abide by the rules to the letter of the law - even if we think the rulings are wrong.