Here's One - Robert's "new" Rules on Showdown ...

[Blaster]

 There's an interesting article by Bob Cioffone ( Roberts Rules), in the Last issue of CardPlayer.
  He essentially is saying he is rethinking the wording of his current rules... To clarify that "No artificial barriers be placed on letting the best hand win at showdown .."

 He gives examples of
 Player A, at showdown, forward motion throwing his hand away, to the center of the table face down, clearly intending a fold,  & player B then shows 2 rags or whatever , & Player A then wants to reach over & retrieve his hand... ...  His contention is that player A's request to retrieve &have his cards flipped over,  & let A take the pot, should be granted, if  his face down cards are clearly identifiable.
    Another mentioned scenario, is Player B at showdown says "I got a straight", & "A" says "OK, I guess you win then", & tosses his cards face down in center of table, & B quickly flips over showing 2 pair ( honest mis-read of hand in example), "A" then before dealer can finish mucking his cards wants to retrieve his face down better 2 pair .. Bob says that request should be granted.
   He sums it up as saying that , unlike earlier streets where betting is still possible, & most rules should be strictly enforced, once betting is over the best hand should win, & no artificial barriers or technicalities cause a clearly identifiable best hand to be mucked ...

   Thoughts?

[William]

At showdown I'm for it. When all betting is over, the best hand should win.

Retrieving cards that are still easily identifiable is in the best interest of the game. Especially when a hand has been miscalled.

If a player makes a habit of discarding a hand and then asking to have it retrieved you can dish out penalties.

Of course it's the dealer's responsibility to muck hands immediately after they are folded. So if Player A folds, and the dealer mucks the hand, and Player B tables rags, then that's just tough luck for Player A. But if Player B shows his rags at the same time that Player A folds, and Player A's hand is retrievable, it should be retrieved in my opinion.

[Blaster]

  I generally agree as well.
   What's not clear or addressed one way or the other in the article is if someone 'verbalizes'  "I Fold."
  Should that be binding, or be an 'artificial barrier' preventing the best hand from winning at showdown ...

[Martini]

Makes sense. But it does strike me as a *little* too hand-holdy. If everyone would just follow procedures of tabling their hands then cards will speak and there's no need to go fishing around the table turning up folded hands. I think it also puts more undue burden on the dealer to manage cards after they've been folded. For instance, Player A claims "Flush" and tables cards which at a glance appear like they could complete a Flush so Player B and C discard their hands but after closer inspection Player A does not in fact have a Flush. Now Player B claims the pot with the Nut Straight and his cards are close to but not touching Player C's cards and Player B wants to invoke the "artificial barriers" clause.

Again, I think the rule is logical but I just don't like how it is a measure to protect players from themselves.

[Martini]

  I generally agree as well.
   What's not clear or addressed one way or the other in the article is if someone 'verbalizes'  "I Fold."
  Should that be binding, or be an 'artificial barrier' preventing the best hand from winning at showdown ...

Presumably the new rule wouldn't apply since someone folding would prevent a showdown from happening?

[William]

  I generally agree as well.
   What's not clear or addressed one way or the other in the article is if someone 'verbalizes'  "I Fold."
  Should that be binding, or be an 'artificial barrier' preventing the best hand from winning at showdown ...

Presumably the new rule wouldn't apply since someone folding would prevent a showdown from happening?

I think this is about the hypothetical "I fold" at showdown.

Player A: "I bet 120."
Player B: "Call."
Player A (having his bluff called): "Fold." and throws his hand away.
Player B shows King high, Player A had Ace high, and asks for his hand back since it hasn't been mucked yet.

[Blaster]

  I generally agree as well.
   What's not clear or addressed one way or the other in the article is if someone 'verbalizes'  "I Fold."
  Should that be binding, or be an 'artificial barrier' preventing the best hand from winning at showdown ...

Presumably the new rule wouldn't apply since someone folding would prevent a showdown from happening?

I think this is about the hypothetical "I fold" at showdown.

Player A: "I bet 120."
Player B: "Call."
Player A (having his bluff called): "Fold." and throws his hand away.
Player B shows King high, Player A had Ace high, and asks for his hand back since it hasn't been mucked yet.

Yes exactly ..

[Martini]

  I generally agree as well.
   What's not clear or addressed one way or the other in the article is if someone 'verbalizes'  "I Fold."
  Should that be binding, or be an 'artificial barrier' preventing the best hand from winning at showdown ...

Presumably the new rule wouldn't apply since someone folding would prevent a showdown from happening?

I think this is about the hypothetical "I fold" at showdown.

Player A: "I bet 120."
Player B: "Call."
Player A (having his bluff called): "Fold." and throws his hand away.
Player B shows King high, Player A had Ace high, and asks for his hand back since it hasn't been mucked yet.

Yes exactly ..

Ahhh. Got it.

[Jambine]

Got to agree with Bob.  The spirit of the game demands that the best hand wins at showdown.  That said, if my opponent surrenders at showdown, I would NEVER show my hand (unless required to do so)

[holdemholmes]

I do think the best hand should win, but like Martini said, if people followed simple rules we would not have this issue. When someone says 2 pair, I hold my cards until i see the 2 pair that they called out. That's all you have to do to avoid this problem.

[Dr. Neau]

The NCAA is modifying its rules for basketball.

When a player gets their 5th foul, they'll now be asked if they knew they had 4.  If they say, "No", then the 5th foul will just be a warning.  If they say "Yes", then they are out of the game.

[William]

I tried looking for the article online, but it may not have been published (yet).

Apart from the magazine (which I can't get here) does anybody have a link, or could you copy the text of the article?

[MsprinM]

I do not like this change at all. The player is responsible for protecting their hand and IMO this includes making sure you actually have lost the hand before you discard. If I call a bet you are going to show me I am beat before I fold. If you fold without being sure then it is your problem not mine.

[holdemholmes]

If you fold without being sure then it is your problem not mine.

EXACTLY!

[William]

If you fold without being sure then it is your problem not mine.

EXACTLY!

In all honesty, it doesn't really change much. Instead of waiting for the other person to show or fold, you wait for the other person to show or get their hand mucked.

[Poker Jack]

Just a thought:
What if you ban players from showing down UNLESS they are asked by the dealer to do so.
I'm talking a kind of new procedure here.
Usually when the dealer says "showdown", the player who has a likely winner is somewhat obligated to show first, or the player who took last aggressive action must show first.

Now, what if you made it a rule that you must wait for the dealer to ask you to show your hand, before you can table it?

Example:
Player A, B, C go to showdown. Player B made the last bet, C and A called.
Dealer rakes in the chips and says: "Player B, do you want to show down your hand, or muck?"
Player B shows.
Dealer reads: "Player B shows two pair: aces and jacks."
Dealer turns to Player C (next in line): "Player C, do you want to show down or muck?"
Player C throws his cards away, the dealer mucks them right away, then he turns to player A.
Dealer: "Player A, do you want to show down or muck your hand?"
Player A tables his hand, dealer reads: "Player A shows two pair: aces and jacks. Player B wins with the King-kicker."
Dealer proves the board, mucks Player As hand, awards pot and kills the board.

It would surely slow down the whole showdown procedure, but it would leave less room for confusion.
Also, it would cut down all the situations where players are starring at each other, teasing each other to show first until the dealer has to say: "You must show first, sir, since you took the last aggressive action."
This happens quite often, so maybe you gain some time by doing it step by step.
Also, there is less potential for misreads by players since the dealer announces the hand right away and it's tabled at the same time.

Well, just my two cents though, dunno if this is practical...  

(Sometimes I wonder why I spent time thinking of how to protect people from making stupid moves at the table.
I mean, it's not rocket science, just follow procedure and common sense... jeez.)

[Martini]

@Poker Jack
It would add order for sure but the trade off in time would not be worth it to me. In a well run game the vast majority of showdowns go quickly and without incident. I think that the time and effort would be better spent on making sure the players are aware of rules and procedures.

[Blaster]

@Poker Jack
It would add order for sure but the trade off in time would not be worth it to me. In a well run game the vast majority of showdowns go quickly and without incident. I think that the time and effort would be better spent on making sure the players are aware of rules and procedures.

+1  .. Not to mention that Poker Jack's idea to "ban" players from showing would also, what, make the house potentially give penalties & warnings to a player simply flipping his cards at showdown?? It also seems to nullify the rule that allows a player to request to see a hand that he called or made it to showdown, & could make it easier for angles such as chip dumping & collusion...

[R-Ho]

There's an interesting article by Bob Cioffone ( Roberts Rules), in the Last issue of CardPlayer.
  He essentially is saying he is rethinking the wording of his current rules... To clarify that "No artificial barriers be placed on letting the best hand win at showdown .."

 .......
   Thoughts?

I'd prefer to reserve detailed comment until I read the article from Card Player. But, for now, I think that a player doesn't need this new protection; he already has two proections: 1) he can simply table his hand at showdown, 2) he can wait to see proof that he is beat and then can fold.

Does he really need a third protection? That of waving a rulebook in an effort to get his hand back after lazy play (premature fold)?  

[Dr. Neau]

Here's the bigger issue.

Why is one guy sitting out there deciding what rules everyone should follow?

It's nice that it's all documented, but if things are going to change it shouldn't be at the whim of one person, no matter how knowledgeable he is.

[Magoddi]

Here's the bigger issue.

Why is one guy sitting out there deciding what rules everyone should follow?

It's nice that it's all documented, but if things are going to change it shouldn't be at the whim of one person, no matter how knowledgeable he is.

I've often wondered about this myself.  I would have thought that there would have been some committee formed by now.  Maybe there is.....?

[Martini]

Here's the bigger issue.

Why is one guy sitting out there deciding what rules everyone should follow?

It's nice that it's all documented, but if things are going to change it shouldn't be at the whim of one person, no matter how knowledgeable he is.

I've often wondered about this myself.  I would have thought that there would have been some committee formed by now.  Maybe there is.....?

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing so. If you don't want to use RRoP then write your own or make house rules that override whatever you don't like about RRoP.

There have been previous efforts. Take for example the FIDPA which was supposed to make a new international standard but I never saw a single copy of their rule set despite the rules being in effect at the Bellagio. FIDPA website *still* under construction two and a half years after announcement. (see also http://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,17177.0.html) Then there was the World Poker Association which published their set of rules (http://www.wpapoker.org/?sect=rules&pg=tournament-rules)and their website is now abandoned. Publishing a set of rules is apparently more work than people are interested in doing apart from the work that Coach Bob's does.

[R-Ho]

Here's the bigger issue.

Why is one guy sitting out there deciding what rules everyone should follow.

It's like he volunteered for a suicide mission by default after everyone else in line took one step back.