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

[Bacon]

If BB just mucked and didn't show, then him having 3 cards would never have been known... and that's why I say it's the BB hand.

[David]

True

Also, if the BB shows three cards and is considered dead - I don't think the pot can be rewarded to a play who doesn't have a live hand? Probably wrong though.

[Bacon]

But once the SB mucks, the hand is considered over?

[David]

That's my point I'm agreeing with you.

[maccatak11]

Strange. i really have no idea. i would probably award blinds and antes to the SB and return other money. Yes it is the BB responsibility to check their hole cards to ensure they have the correct amount, but if it was an "honest) (whatever that is) mistake, then i wouldn't penalise them any more chips other than their big blind and ante. If it had happened before where the BB had been careless with their cards, then i would still award only antes and BB to the SB, and then set an orbit or 3-hand penalty. but yeah i really have no idea.

[David]

But once the SB mucks, the hand is considered over?

Although, the Small Blind was the last person with a legal hand.

[Jav1000]

But once the SB mucks, the hand is considered over?

So you're saying you can win a pot with an invalid hand

I don't know the answer to this but surely you should never be able to win a pot with an invalid hand???

[David]

Depends when the invalid hand is identified though. The hand had played out and THEN found out, so maybe that makes a difference. It's like finding an issue with the blinds - let's say they were wrong, and they skipped someone, which happens. That's wrong but then significant action occurs, so you play as it is.

At the point the person is awarded the pot, there hasn't been an error *identified*. Not saying I am right though.

I guess you could reverse it.. what if the same action occurred, but then the SB rolls over three cards and DOES have the best hand? Does the fact he won at a showdown matter, rather than a muck?

Which begs the question, what if the SB rolled his hand on the river therefore being a live hand? Do the Jacks with a ten THAN become invalid?

[Bacon]

But once the SB mucks, the hand is considered over?

So you're saying you can win a pot with an invalid hand

I don't know the answer to this but surely you should never be able to win a pot with an invalid hand???

Well, if he didn't show and instead mucked (which I usually do when winning without showdown), then yes, he would have (and probably not known about it)

[Garth Kay]

I don't recall what the actual ruling was.

I do know the way I would rule; once any players hand is revealed to contain more than the legal two hole cards their hand is declared dead. Whether this was accidental or otherwise should not come into consideration; it is a players repsonisbility to ensure they are playing a legal hand, acting in the best interests and in the spirit of the game and to protect their hand at all times.

In this situation I would declare the big blinds hand dead and award the pot to the small blind, to do otherwise jeapordises the integrity of the game and sets a precedent that that could result in players looking to leverage this situation in a favourable light.

What is to stop dealers from deliveirng themselves, three or four cards and going to showdown to declare that it was accidental? An extreme case I know but here is a situation which could impact very negativelly on future hands if not handled correctly.

It is actually a rule; if at any time a player finds their hand to contain more than the require two hole cards their hand is immediately declared dead and mucked, all chips/moenies contributed to the pot are forefeited by this player.