You show me your cards and I'll show you.

[Charlie44]

Not sure if this is the right place to post. Thought it was an interesting incident at casino. Wonder what everyone thinks should be outcome.

UTG limps, folds to mid pos player who limps, folds to BB who goes all in. UTG has BB covered and calls. He immediately shows BB only his cards saying I like you so I'll call. Not thinking BB then reciprocates and shows only UTG his cards. Mid pos player who also has BB covered, calls. He immediately calls room supervisor saying he is unhappy because UTG has advantage.

UTG with a lot of principle imo said he folds.

What should have been outcome if supervisor had to decide ? 

[turny]

shouldnt happen imo but makes no difference as they are both all in and the guy still with the decision has not seen them. dont see how he thinks the utg has an advantage as he called before seeing the bbs hand

[Sheriff Fatman]

Reads to me like there is still side-betting between UTG and MP - only BB is all-in.

[Charlie44]

Reads to me like there is still side-betting between UTG and MP - only BB is all-in.

Ye thats right

[rex008]

Show one show all - UTG and BB should turn their cards over. MP & UTG can then continue to bet as they wish. IMHO, anyway.

[turny]

aah i see, late night misread here lol


mp must now see the cards of both bb and utg.

utg cannot now make action for the rest of the hand, he can only call or fold to any action from mp. mp doesnt have to show his hand until there is a showdown.

[Charlie44]

aah i see, late night misread here lol


mp must now see the cards of both bb and utg.

utg cannot now make action for the rest of the hand, he can only call or fold to any action from mp. mp doesnt have to show his hand until there is a showdown.

Thanks for that . Interesting . I wasn't sure of the rules. So what you are saying is that  UTG has to show his cards to MP because he showed to BB even though BB is no longer active in the hand.

[turny]

aah i see, late night misread here lol


mp must now see the cards of both bb and utg.

utg cannot now make action for the rest of the hand, he can only call or fold to any action from mp. mp doesnt have to show his hand until there is a showdown.

Thanks for that . Interesting . I wasn't sure of the rules. So what you are saying is that  UTG has to show his cards to MP because he showed to BB even though BB is no longer active in the hand.

yes "show one show all" then only the mp can be the aggressor from now on. if the utg was also all in showing the bb his cards would make no difference but because mp and utg still have chips then the utg must show mp his cards and cannot make anymore action only answer action

[ScottMGee]

Not sure on the exact ruling, but the sensible thing would be that the BB has to show you his cards and action continues as normal, with warning to both players.

UTG has shown his cards to an inactive player, so bit harsh to say he cannot bet.

At the end of the hand I would state that UTG has to show the table his cards, even if he loses or folds.

[Kev B]

You have to be very careful showing your cards to another player when there is still action to take place as local rules on this vary. For instance if you show your cards to another player in a comp at the Circus in Stoke - on - Trent then your hand is declared dead.

[Royal Flush]

You have to be very careful showing your cards to another player when there is still action to take place as local rules on this vary. For instance if you show your cards to another player in a comp at the Circus in Stoke - on - Trent then your hand is declared dead.

Likewise in Brighton.

In this instance i would probably realise that the UTG/BB are a bit clueless, i would ask the BB to table his hand so the other guy knows what he has i would then let the remaining 2 players play out the pot. After the hand i would issue a time/round penalty to the BB and UTG players.

If they do it again at any point, or know what they are doing in the first place, then i would declare both hands dead.