Penalty – Checking with the Nuts (thoughts?)

[Derrick Hansen]

Hi all,

As some of you know, I am in the process of moving to Delaware. Well, I entered my first tournament in Delaware and was hit with a penalty for “Checking with the Nuts” and was then forced to sit out for an entire round of play at the Table (while my “antes” and “blinds” were taken from my stack).

Now, the rule is designed to avoid collusion and to keep a player honest in being aggressive and not giving other players an advantage when action would be seemingly required. I get that, but let me explain the situation that unfolded.

I had A10 offsuit and was on the button. I bet pre-flop and two players called. The flop came rainbow KQ10. There was some minimal betting. Ace came on the turn. More betting, still all three players in the hand (turns out I had two pair A10, guy to my right had two pair K10 and other player had a set of Queens). Finally, J came on the River. So the board hit Broadway with no chance of a flush.

We all laughed as it was obvious that the nuts were on the Board and we were chopping the pot. We all checked after the river. As I was on the button, I was the last person to check. At that point in time, the dealer called the Tournament Director over and I was hit with the penalty.

According to the TD, it didn’t matter that we were chopping, I was required to make a bet AND, according to the TD, if someone down the line failed to further Raise that bet, then that person would have been hit with the same penalty. In other words, the TD says we all needed to end up All-in on the hand in order to make sure a player avoided a penalty.

Now, everyone at the table found this to be a bit ridiculous. While serving my penalty, I did some online research and found that the application of the penalty can be within the TD’s discretion and (according to one website forum I found) should not be applied when the Nuts are on the board (exactly our situation).

My question to the group is whether (a) you have any experience with this rule/penalty; (b) if you feel this is an appropriate application of the rule; and (c) if you know of any sources that I could refer to in order to try and convince the TD (in the future) that this rule was misapplied.

I realize this is a very narrow question, but figured some of you have a lot more experience with tournament. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Derrick

[Brad Jensen]

Hey Derrick,

Sorry to be late to the party on this.

The ruling here is both absolutely by the book and also absurd.

You received a penalty in this spot because you were last to act and by having the nuts, obligated to bet because you close the action. Had one of the other players simply bet you would, by rule,be obligated to raise.

The TD went Joe Friday on you here. Technically he followed the rule to the letter.

Was it applied correctly? Not in the spirit the rule was written. As you already stated, the rule is in place to prevent collusion. Here, where everyone has the nuts, no collusion is possible. The only reason I can think of to apply the rule here is to force all hands to show in the event there might have been an intent to collude and the board thwarted that chance. How you’d prove that is beyond me.

The TD could have used his better discretion, which is available to him within TDA guidelines, and not given a penalty.

If I were making this ruling, I would simply point out the technical definition of the rule, that you technically violated it, that with everyone having the nuts it didn’t violate the intent of the rule, and to be careful in the future when being last to act with the nuts. No penalty warranted or given.

In the future, I would recommend simply jamming in this spot. It’s all upside. You might get a distracted opponent to fold and instead of a three way chop, you chop heads up. I’ve actually won a pot like this heads up when my opponent instamucked without thinking.

[Tony Gaglione]

What Brad said.

[Author]

Posts