Embracing Controversy
![[user4144]](/img/avatars/avatar.svg){kind=avatar}
I embrace controversy, it makes the game interesting, so when I heard the floor called over to Table 26, my blood instantly picked up pace.
On this occasion, the ruling involved Robert Williamson III. With the board reading 
, Williamson III bet 2,700 and his opponent threw in the call.
Encouraged by the dealer, Williamson III revealed 
, only for his opponent to claim that he'd announced "raise." Although two players confirmed this, neither the dealer nor Williamson III had heard the declaration, so the floor was called.
After a brief debate, the final decision was that said player was not allowed to raise, and also had to leave his call in the middle, which considering he had 
for the busted flush draw, was not an ideal situation. Nevertheless, Williamson picked up the pot.
Whilst the dealer confessed, "I take full responsibility that I probably made a mistake," we asked the tournament director for clarification on the ruling, before being told: "If cards are exposed, it cuts off the action."
It was an interesting scenario that left us with numerous questions as to the best possible solution: Should he be entitled to raise if two people heard him? Should he be given the option to fold?... and so on.
Perhaps the most intriguing question, however, is that if he was given the option to raise, would he still do so knowing he was up against a set, and if so, how much would he raise, and would Williamson make the call if he were, say, to move all in? I guess we'll never know.