At a $100 tournament table I became an unwitting witness to a common poker behavior and a reluctant participant in the ensuing maelstrom of accusations, recriminations and ill will. Because of this, I contacted two highly regarded poker writers, a certain poker magazine publisher and another well-known author/trainer for input on this matter. Usually when three people debate a subject one can count on the presence of four opinions (at least), but that was not the case. There was universal consistency in their evaluations and, citing the Tournament Directors’ Association rules, made the fact of the matter clear to this writer. That is the purpose of today’s article.
Scenario: The tournament is down to half the field; players cannot quite see the money but they are beginning to smell it. Almost all the loose and reckless players have been eliminated, the shorter stacks are becoming desperate and the larger stacks are attacking the smaller ones attempting to build ammunition dumps for the final push to glory. I mucked my cards when the player to my right – he being the fourth one into the pot – called the blind. The flop came As-9h-6h; play was checked to my neighbor who made a pot-sized wager and was called by two other players. The turn brought the 7h at which my neighbor made what looked like an informational bet, about one-third the pot, again getting called by two players. The river card was the 5h; now there was as multi-coordinated board as I had seen in a long time. My neighbor checked, the next player went all-in and was beaten into the pot by the remaining player. My neighbor showed me an Ace, and then threw his hand towards the muck. Player A said, “I want to see that hand!” tabling Ah-Kd; the second showed 10h-8h for the straight-flush and the win. Now the fun began…
The dealer had taken my neighbor’s cards, tapped the muck with them (so they were officially dead) and set them aside. He then turned them over with the Ace I had seen on top. At that point I opened my big mouth and said, “All I saw was the Ace.” Player A – already on tilt for losing a huge pot – loudly demanded both cards be shown, quoting ‘show one, show all.’ My neighbor said all he had shown me was the Ace and Player A was not entitled to see the other card. A ‘discussion’ ensued, the dealer wisely called over the floorman and the conversation…ahhhh… “heated up.” The decision was that since it was corroborated only the Ace was shown, showing my neighbor’s Ace was sufficient; the dealer then mucked all the cards and play resumed. Not quietly, however, as Player A (now virtually felted) loudly complained about the ruling and the injustice/misinterpretation of the “Show one, show all” rule. Thereby was brought to this writer’s brain the question regarding this rule: Is the intention of this rule regarding the “one” and “all” meant for the cards or the players at the table?
On the surface it’s a simple enough question; if the rule was intended as regarding the cards, both would be shown every time. If the rule referenced people, then everyone should see the card(s) shown. “Now,” as Shakespeare once wrote, “There’s the rub.” By seeing the card my neighbor was playing, I became privy to information regarding his play the other players did not have (fine with me, btw). But in all fairness to the game, having that information gave me an unfair advantage in that I now knew how my neighbor played a particular hand. Poker is a game of information, partial information to be sure, but every kernel of intelligence one can glean about the opposition may provide the extra key to defeating that player. I had a kernel of Intel the others at the table did not; it is precisely that unfair advantage the “show one, show all” rule was intended to dispel.
And there, dear reader, is the upshot of all those contacted by me to gain by understanding this rule. “Show one, show all” is interpreted to mean, “If you show one player your card(s), then all players must be allowed to see it/them as well.” If the exhibitionist shows one card, it is that one card (not both) that everyone gets to see; if both are shown, both must be revealed to the table. The rule regards all players, not all cards.
This rule is straightforward if the offense occurs at the end of all action, when there is no betting remaining. It gets dicey when the act occurs during play. At that point – if someone invokes this rule – the cards should be officially mucked, then shown when action is complete. The exhibitionist may rightly be given a warning to not repeat the offense and given a penalty if he repeats the transgression.
The last advice regarding this act and the rule covering it is: Unless required by the rules and/or game procedure, don’t show anyone your cards – ever. All you are doing is giving away information that can/may be used against you. No-one needs to know what you almost had, how close you came, what you just missed. Keep your informational gold to yourself. If you just give it away like that you might as well go play slots because you are certainly not thinking about poker.
——————
Drew Chitiea is a semi-pro poker player living in Colorado. His tournament wins amount to over $500,000 with fourth place at a World Poker Tour event and a second place at Binion’s World Poker Classic in Las Vegas, N.V.
