You're a Bunch of Factors

I wish to have a ruling on a player who disguises a hand intentionally.

Please remember that we are playing free poker, and we are all in most cases having a couple of drinks and having a fun night out. Accidents do happen from time to time, but some players are looking for weakness and are taking advantage of certain situtions. Some situations can be compounded by allowing spectators to be seated at tables, whilst a game is in progress.

Example: I am dealer on a given hand. The under the gun player does not act (admittedly this is my fault being dealer, but like I said we are all drinking and having fun, I was momentarilly distracted). The player following under the gun folds (out of turn) and subsequent folds come around to me "The dealer", I folded my 32 off suit. the small blind annonced raise. Then the under the gun player announces that he/she had not acted yet and checked, and wanted to force a check all round. I advised him/her that it was too late and he should have said something sooner, as he/her just watched 3 players fold. I did not allow him to play this hand on the grounds that he deliberatley disguised his hand.

This situation happened for a couple of reasons. The under the gun player had his/her cards covered and since I did not see his/her cards I did not ask him/her to act and by this time the next player had folded. Secondly, he/her watched intently to see how others acted in this hand. and thirdly spectators were seated at the table, which confused me as to who exatly was in the hand. I simply asked the next cards that I saw to call or raise.

when is a player allowed to act?

If you are first to act and do nothing, then watch subsequent folds around the table and upon seeing a raise, demand that the raiser has acted out of turn and force a check, is this fair?

I believe that I made the correct decission (as dealer, given 3 players had already folded) to not allow this player to force a check. A Td was not called over and this player did not play the hand. I later discussed this issue with a TD and I was advised that had a Td been called over, the under the gun player would have been allowed to check, and subsequently a forced check all round.

I made this decision, as I have observed this on more than one occassion. Not necessarily by this player, but I have seen it happen too many times.

I would like you to consider this. Think about it. then offer a reply, critisism or comment.

It is possible for a player to accidentally act out of turn. but for a player to allow 3 folds and then a raise, and then demand a check, serious, is this fair.

REDDA

Was this at NPL?

I'm not privvy to the exact rules in this situation, but forcing a check all round, wtf? This is preflop. What if BB picks up AA? Raising should be fair game. UTG should be able to either call, raise or fold. If he wants to try something silly and use the information that 3 players have folded makes his A6 stronger, and raise with it, so be it.

Normally if a player is yet to act (accidental folds around the table, etc), action returns back to them and they make their move - at least, that's how we've been doing it. Personally, I think you made the right move. If you're sure they deliberately disguised their hand, it should be dead.

firstly, any out of turn action stands in NPL - the raise is a raise, there is no "forced to check."

secondly, cards should be on display to everyone at all times - i hate people that hide the cards with their hands all the time.

thirdly, i think that the player that has not acted would have their hand mucked - it seems like they had plenty of opportunity to let everyone know that they were still to act, and if they do not let everyone know this, then i would class that as a fold.

but the TDs might be able to offer some more insight into this situation.

great first post redda

i am confused more than normal?

All bets would stand.

I'd give the player a warning (if he/she was indeed deliberately concealing their cards as an angle shoot), and muck any subsequent hands where this occurs.

Significant Action,
He has to call the raise of the small blind to stay in the hand. If he hasn't acted in turn, and is using information of other people that have folded after his turn and using that to his advantage. Then it becomes an angle shoot.

And as ALK said, there is no forced checking in the game anymore because people could take advantage of it. Plus it goes more inline with casino rules so the transition from pub poker to Casino poker is smoother.

As TD i would "Politely" inform him that it is against the spirit of the game to try and angle shoot like this. If he did it again his hand would be mucked. If he repeatedly kept on doing it, i would ask him to leave.

I hate anybody that angle shoots or slow rolls. Deserve all the bad beats in the world.

Think my answer might have to be taken with grain of salt. Bit slow on the rules now. Been awhile.

firstly hiding live cards is a big no no and that player can be warned, recieve a time penalty and even be kicked out of the game for that breach of etiquette.

Secondly no no no to a forced check down, substantial action had taken place therefore all previous action stands.

Its the players responsibility to ensure that his live cards are visible to the entire table. Yes protect your cards but use a card protector or a chip but dont cover your cards with your hands so that no one can see them.

What i would like to know is, was this the first time it happened or was it happening continually? Was it an accident or a deliberate attempt to see a cheap flop with ace rag, small pockets or low suited connectors?

Damn Brett stop being a quicker on the keyboard than me

You were right. He didn't have to fold the hand, he could pay the raise, but the TD should have been called over regardless to issue warning about covering cards. Maybe a room warning should have been issues about covering cards AND chips at that point.