Duke attempts the Impossible

[thinsy147]

I thought it was a fairly standard ruling as I have seen it automatically applied several times

Def a standard ruling, that I have come accross in most casinos Ive played in.

I"ve heard of it before and if it is in any casino rulebook I"d like to see them explain the reasoning behind it.

My best guess is it"s another one of those "off the cuff" rulings that got made way back and has somehow seeped into common usage...even though it"s clearly bull-puckey.

Surely the reason behind the ruling is that if you do something wrong you"re meant to suffer for it?

Whether you expose your cards by accident, or as an angle shoot - it"s the same result. If you can no longer take any aggressive action you suffer because you have done so.

And it"s your action being punished, so why shouldn"t you?

Maybe a slight tweek to the ruling would work......

The punishment is that they can only call or check! This way if the other person has a better hand or wishes to bluff they can!! (although in this case I think the hand would have checked down anyway!)

[AMRN]

Maybe a slight tweek to the ruling would work......

The punishment is that they can only call or check! This way if the other person has a better hand or wishes to bluff they can!! (although in this case I think the hand would have checked down anyway!)

whenever I"ve seen it happen, that has been the ruling.

[Jon MW]

Maybe a slight tweek to the ruling would work......

The punishment is that they can only call or check! This way if the other person has a better hand or wishes to bluff they can!! (although in this case I think the hand would have checked down anyway!)

whenever I"ve seen it happen, that has been the ruling.

+1 I assumed that"s what they meant

[duke3016]

The ruling was no more aggressive action allowed. ie only check or call (obv he aint folding lol)

[Paulie_D]

Taking any options away during the hand is just nonsee. Apply a penalty once ac its over

[Marty719]

Taking any options away during the hand is just nonsee. Apply a penalty once ac its over

Pretty sure its to stop ppl turning over their hand to gain info and then acting accordingly.  I think its a good rule fwiw.  Its certainly better thn killing the hand.

[thinsy147]

The ruling was no more aggressive action allowed. ie only check or call (obv he aint folding lol)

Oops.. My bad!! That is exactly what you said in an earlier post.... I guess I just need some reading lessons!!  

[Jon MW]

Taking any options away during the hand is just nonsee. Apply a penalty once ac its over

Pretty sure its to stop ppl turning over their hand to gain info and then acting accordingly.  I think its a good rule fwiw.  Its certainly better thn killing the hand.

If you only penalise people after the hand is over - they still gain the benefit of their angle shoot for their hand. Shouldn"t the aim of a penalty be to stop people doing it? Why would they stop doing it if they can still gain an advantage?

[Paulie_D]

I get what you are saying but this clearly wasn"t an angle. You punish people after the hand is over. What the penalty is where we can decide on how appropriate it is.

[Marty719]

I get what you are saying but this clearly wasn"t an angle. You punish people after the hand is over. What the penalty is where we can decide on how appropriate it is.

So who determines if each individual hand is an angle or not?  Obv better to have a set rule for the situation.

[PHIL_TC]

Playing with cards exposed is fun.............

Refering to clubs as parsley is from now on going to be my thing

"So Phil what did you have?"
"Well I had AJ suited"
"What suit?"
"Parsley"

I"m easily amused

[Paulie_D]

 Obv better to have a set rule for the situation.

I don"t disagree as long as the rule/punishment makes sense...and this one doesn"t...it seems to punish the innocent as well as the guilty.

If the rule was "Expose your hand and you have to stand on the table with your underpants on your head" it would be the same...it just ain"t logical.

He"s put himself at a disadvantage (intentional or not). Yes, smack him down afterwards (with a varying degree of penalty based on circumstance &/or previous knowledge) but "No aggressive action" makes no sense (at least to me).

Insofar as this situation isn"t specifically covered on any recognised rulebook (that I know of), I have to assume that other rules cover it...if you see what I mean.

I"m limited to what I can do at work (APAT is blocked...feckin" IT jobsworths) but I may have delve this evening to do some more research.

[duke3016]

To be fair, given the location I was impressed they imposed any rule. I am also grateful that my optimistic shove with QJ utg has slipped under the abuse radar.

[AMRN]

 Obv better to have a set rule for the situation.

I don"t disagree as long as the rule/punishment makes sense...and this one doesn"t...it seems to punish the innocent as well as the guilty.

How does it punish the innocent?  Everyone else can continue to bet/check/raise/fold at will - it"s only the exposer who has his aggressive options removed.

[Marty719]

"He"s put himself at a disadvantage (intentional or not). Yes, smack him down afterwards (with a varying degree of penalty based on circumstance &/or previous knowledge) but "No aggressive action" makes no sense (at least to me)."

What about if they put themselves at an advantage by getting a read?  This is the reason "no aggressive action" makes sense.