exposed card...what's the ruling?

[Mr.Victor]

I'm a tournament director for a bar league and I came upon a situation in which I wasn't sure how to rule.  There were 5 players in a hand and one of them went all in.  He then flipped his card face up accidentally showing trips and then quickly flipped them back over realizing that he had prematurely exposed his cards.  Two out of the other 4 players in the hand saw his cards, and two did not.  Is it correct and fair that all players in the hand know what his cards were?  What is the ruling on this situation? 

[cigarherb]

Yes, all players in the hand should have access to the same information. His hand is not dead, but he should get a warning the first time and a penalty if he does it again.

[Martini]

Yep. Show one show all. His hand needs to be revealed to all players so everyone is on equal footing.

[Gobbs]

I'm a tournament director for a bar league and I came upon a situation in which I wasn't sure how to rule.  There were 5 players in a hand and one of them went all in.  He then flipped his card face up accidentally showing trips and then quickly flipped them back over realizing that he had prematurely exposed his cards.  Two out of the other 4 players in the hand saw his cards, and two did not.  Is it correct and fair that all players in the hand know what his cards were?  What is the ruling on this situation? 

The other posts are correct, but just out of curiosity, define "accidentally".

Gobbs

[Wedge Rock]

1: arising from extrinsic causes : incidental, nonessential
2 a: occurring unexpectedly or by chance b: happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accidentally

[Gobbs]

1: arising from extrinsic causes : incidental, nonessential
2 a: occurring unexpectedly or by chance b: happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accidentally

Smart alec!!!!   

Let me be more clear...by accidental, do you mean he didn't mean to flip them, or he did it prematurely?  You said prematurely later in the post.

Gobbs

[Mr.Victor]

He flipped prematurely and then quickly flipped them back over realizing his mistake.  Whether accidentally or prematurely, it would be the same ruling correct?

[Dr. Neau]

Accidentally prematurely.

[huskerinct]

Accidentally prematurely.

Sounds like my last bedroom escapade!   Hi-Yoooooo!

[demon604]

Accidentally prematurely.

Sounds like my last bedroom escapade!   Hi-Yoooooo!

dude...

[Gobbs]

He flipped prematurely and then quickly flipped them back over realizing his mistake.  Whether accidentally or prematurely, it would be the same ruling correct?

That would depend on your house rules.  Many games have a rule in which an intentionally exposed hand is dead.  So, there is a big distinction between premature and accident.  It doesn't sound like you have such a house rule, though.  If you had, his hand would be ruled dead whereas, if it was an accident, it would not be dead.

Gobbs

[Nerre]

It's always hard to prove someones intention...

[Gobbs]

It's always hard to prove someones intention...

Yes, but it's easy to see if they flipped them on purpose or not.

Gobbs

[ChrisChip10]

Accidentally prematurely.

Sounds like my last bedroom escapade!   Hi-Yoooooo!

dude...

Don't you mean "Dud"!?

[Nerre]

Yes, but it's easy to see if they flipped them on purpose or not.

On purpose or due to misunderstanding?

[Dr. Neau]

Yes, but it's easy to see if they flipped them on purpose or not.

On purpose or due to misunderstanding?

Due to a misunderstanding on purpose.  Accidentally.

[Gobbs]

Yes, but it's easy to see if they flipped them on purpose or not.

On purpose or due to misunderstanding?

Is there a difference?

Gobbs

[tator2k]

Don't the rules state, once you're all-in you're hand can not be mucked or made dead?

[Martini]

Don't the rules state, once you're all-in you're hand can not be mucked or made dead?

House rules can override standard or widely accepted rules but they should also address how to resolve situations like this where a person has their hand killed after declaring all in.

[Gobbs]

Don't the rules state, once you're all-in you're hand can not be mucked or made dead?

No, it says that once you're all-in and there is no more betting, you must show your cards.  Therefore, you cannot fold them and the dealer should not muck them.  However, they can still be declared dead.  For example, what if you are all-in, turn over your cards, and see that you have three cards?  The hand is dead.  What if you find you have two of the same card?  It's dead.  What if you acted on a hand with a joker in a game that doesn't use a joker?  It's dead.

Gobbs

[R-Ho]

What if you find you have two of the same card?  It's dead.

Gobbs

This voids all action, then you've got to unravel why the player didn't say something earlier...

[Gobbs]

What if you find you have two of the same card?  It's dead.

Gobbs

This voids all action, then you've got to unravel why the player didn't say something earlier...

Not necessarily...but probably.  You're right.  I got a bit carried away, but the point is the same, I guess.

Gobbs

[R-Ho]

What if you find you have two of the same card?  It's dead.

Gobbs

This voids all action, then you've got to unravel why the player didn't say something earlier...

Not necessarily...but probably.  You're right.  I got a bit carried away, but the point is the same, I guess.

Gobbs

Yeah, I get carried way at times, too... 

[Nerre]

On purpose or due to misunderstanding?

Is there a difference?

Yes, the intent.

[Jambine]

If your penalty is based on intent, you will never be able to give a penalty.

[Gobbs]

If your penalty is based on intent, you will never be able to give a penalty.

Intentionally does not mean he intended to break the rules, it means he intentionally turned over the cards.  If somebody reaches down, picks up the cards, and turns them over; he intentionally turned them over.  End of story.  I don't need to know his intent, only that he intentionally turned them over.

Gobbs

[Nerre]

So, even if he was mislead into turning them over by another player hiding his cards or acting out of turn it doesn't make any difference?

[Gobbs]

So, even if he was mislead into turning them over by another player hiding his cards or acting out of turn it doesn't make any difference?

Those would be mitigating circumstances that could change the penalty or cause the penalty to not be enforced; however, these facts were not present in the OP.

Gobbs

[Nerre]

Well, what I said was I don't like rules based on intent, beause intent can never be proven without mindreading.

So, rules should be based on actions.

[Gobbs]

Well, what I said was I don't like rules based on intent, beause intent can never be proven without mindreading.

So, rules should be based on actions.

First, have your expressed your opinion to Major League Baseball, the NBA, all soccer leagues around the world, etc.  All of them have rules based on intent.

Second, this rule is not based on intent, it is based on action.  Did a person pick up his cards and turn them over, or did the person pick them up, fumble them, and they turned over.  Those are actions.  One is intentional, one is not intentional.  Don't mistake intent for intentional.  I do not need to read your mind (in most cases) to determine if you intentionally turned up your cards, I just have to see it happen.

Gobbs

[Nerre]

Don't mistake intent for intentional. 

English is not my primary language, maybe I got thing mixed up?

Intent is "why" you do something, right? And nobody can tell "why" I'm doing something without reading my mind.

Intentional is "on purpose", opposite to "accidetally"?

If you pick you cards up and turn them over it is intentionally.

But you can't have rules saying the it shall be ruled differently based on your intent.

[Gobbs]

Don't mistake intent for intentional. 

English is not my primary language, maybe I got thing mixed up?

Intent is "why" you do something, right? And nobody can tell "why" I'm doing something without reading my mind.

Intentional is "on purpose", opposite to "accidetally"?

If you pick you cards up and turn them over it is intentionally.

But you can't have rules saying the it shall be ruled differently based on your intent.

Let's use a comparison.  Are you a soccer fan?  Ever see anybody get a red card?  Why did they get it?  Maybe this will help explain the difference.

Gobbs

[Nerre]

Sorry, not much into sports, but my son plays soccer. And I know they get penalties if the ball touches their hand, even if they did not intend to touch it with their hand.

So, they get penalties for what they do, not why they do it.

[Gobbs]

Sorry, not much into sports, but my son plays soccer. And I know they get penalties if the ball touches their hand, even if they did not intend to touch it with their hand.

So, they get penalties for what they do, not why they do it.

You last line is incorrect.  If the official believes a foul was particularly hard and a player intended to hurt another player or did not intend to "tackle" the ball, but tackle the player, the official can give a person a red card which automatically ejects him from the game.  The rule is totally based on the official reading the intent of the play and is essential to ensure all players safety in the game.

Similarly, there are often times when intent needs to be determined as best as possible in other sports and poker to ensure the safety and fairness for all players.

Gobbs