I was playing in a tournament at Maryland Live! when a player asked the floor about a rule. He said that he had been playing in a tournament the previous day.
When he was in the big blind, a player in middle position went all in. He looked down at his cards, and before he could say anything, the all-in player, thinking there were no callers, threw his cards into the muck. He happened to have aces, so obviously he would have called. He said the floor ruled that he would not be awarded all of the all-in players chips, but he was awarded the blinds and the amount of the big blind from the all-in player.
The floor who heard about this secondhand was understandably reluctant to give an opinion, because he could not verify that the facts were as the player had related to him. However, he acknowledged that if the facts were as related, he thought there was no rule on point, and he agreed that a player should not lose all his chips on a misunderstanding, so he would likely have ruled the same.
Is there no rule on point? Of course there is a rule. For starters, the general statement of Player Responsibilities in Tournament Directors Association (TDA) Rule 2 states in part:
“Players should … protect their hands [and] follow the action.”
More specifically, TDA Rule 65A concerns hands killed by the dealer:
“Players must protect their hands at all times, including at showdown while waiting for hands to be read. If the dealer kills a hand by mistake or if in TDs judgement a hand is fouled and cannot be identified to 100% certainty, the player has no redress and is not entitled to a refund of called bets. If the player initiated a bet or raise and hasn’t been called, the uncalled amount will be returned.”
It seems odd that if a dealer kills a hand, the player has no redress, but if they muck their own hand, they have redress. That upends the clear rule that “Players must protect their hands at all times.” Doesn’t that mean they must protect it from themselves as well as from others?
The WSOP rule is similar to the TDA Rule. Rule 91 states:
“All chips put into the pot in turn stay in the pot. If a Participant has raised and his or her hand is killed before the raise is called, the Participant may be entitled to the raise back, but will forfeit the amount of the call.”
This rule has some unclear phrasing. It refers in the passive to a hand being killed, but does not say who is doing the killing – does it refer only to a dealer’s action or can a player kill his own hand? It also uses the discretionary “may,” indicating that it is up to the floor to determine whether they get their raise back.
WSOP Rule 108 further elaborates the rule. It states:
“Protect Your Hand: Participants must always protect their own hands. A protected hand is defined as a hand sitting on the table surface with a card cap (see Rule 112) placed on top of the cards. If a dealer or Participant kills or fouls an unprotected hand, the Participant will have no redress and will not be entitled to his or her chips back that were wagered in the hand. If the Participant initiated a bet or raise and hasn’t been called, the uncalled bet or raise will be returned to the Participant.”
Unlike Rule 91, this rule makes clear that a player can kill their own hand. But after initially seeming to indicate that a player who kills their own hand loses the wagered chips, the next sentence carves out an exception for an uncalled bet.
A situation similar to the one at Live! took place at the WSOP main event in 2012. On the fifth day, Gaelle Baumann min-raised with pocket kings. Andras Koroknai went all-in, and then mucked his hand before Baumann had a chance to act (she obviously would have called). The floorman was called over and – just like the Live! TD — ruled that Koroknai could keep his chips, except for matching Baumann’s bet.
He then called WSOP head tournament director Jack Effel, who confirmed the decision. The vague explanation was that it was for “the integrity of the tournament.” It then seemed inevitable that when they met at the final table on day 7, Koroknai eliminated Baumann in tenth place, the highest finish by a woman in the post-Moneymaker era.
These WSOP rules seem to have been followed in Maryland, as well. As per Rule 108, the player got his chips back because the bet had not been called at the time he mucked his hand.
I might note that this rule could lead to angle-shooting — a player who made a bet expecting that it would not be called could “accidentally” muck their hand when they see they are about to be called and thereby get their chips back.
I think there should be no exception and the player who mucks his or her hand should forfeit the pot. Is that fair and in the best interests of the game? I think so. It seems to me any other decision is unfair to the player who did nothing wrong. And it is in the best interests of the game that players face the consequences of their mistakes.
When I told the tournament director in Maryland that I disagreed with the decision, he asked me if I would think it fair if I was eliminated from a tournament if I did that. Absolutely, I responded. I would learn an important lesson, which is why violating rules have consequences. On the other hand, I don’t think I would ever be in a position for that to happen to me. One of the first things my daddy taught me was to wait until the chips were pushed toward me before mucking my hand. If everyone did that, this situation would never arise.
Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Washington. He can be reached at profburnham@yahoo.com.