Let's play - know your poker rulings. Question 1:

[David]

Surely the BB knew he had three cards unless he was calling blind each street?

That's almost deception.

[666HARPS666]

agree with Javier Gayle & Dave, BB hand should be dead 3 cards.

p,s. I think I Sinit who had the 3 cards

[Jav1000]

Surely the BB knew he had three cards unless he was calling blind each street?

That's almost deception.

It couldn't be deception in this situation as the BB voluntarily showed his hand (and surely only realised at that point he had 3 cards), otherwise why would BB show his hand, when he didn't have to.

[Caleb]

BB didn't know he had 3 cards, obviously.

He thought he was playing JJ, but rolled JJ10.

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?mvdci4

[madali]

Can I ask what was the ruling made on the day and why?

[Nathan Butler]

This is a very - "TD discretion" IMO.

That being said.

I would rule in favour of the SB and declare the BB hand dead. Substantial action rule here takes place in favour of the SB. The SB may win the pot, as I would rule the "irregular hand" of the BB dead. A player cannot play or be awarded any pot while playing with 3 cards, even if unaware. Substantial action allows the pot that was created to stand and be awarded to the only remaining player (SB) with out with cards...

In ALL stages of the game, if a player is to be found with an "irregular hand" (in this circumstances, 3 cards) it is to be ruled dead and they void any an all bets or actions from that hand.

[Caleb]

Can I ask what was the ruling made on the day and why?

I will answer soon, just giving a few more people a chance to answer first.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tdiihk

[Garth Kay]

Am I allowed to answer?

[Caleb]

If you want.

You'll be much more succinct than me anyway.

[Hagar76]

I would say the SB would have to be awarded the pot as the BB has acted with an invalid hand, the fact that they knew or not makes difference.