question about heads up play

I was playing a tourney and came across a situation which I think may be wrong. We were down to 3 players and I was on the small blind. The button folded, I pushed all in and the big blind called. I win the hand and eliminate the player on the big blind. On the next hand, we are down to 2 players and I have the button. The dealer says I have to post the small blind, which I believe is wrong. Shouldn't there be a dead small blind on that hand? If not, that means I am forced to post a small blind on two consecutive hands, which does not seem right. Can anybody point me to the rule which explains this?

From Robert's Rules Section 4 (button and blind use):

You had the big blind most recently so you get the button and with it comes the small blind.

I understand that, but the way it happened, I had to post a small blind on two consecutive hands, which I believe was wrong. ?

True, but there's only two of you left and there's two blinds that have to be paid. The rules don't provide an exception.

Seriously, this is completely standard. There's only so many ways you can get from three players down to two:

1 - The button knocks the small blind out. Big blind gets the button and pays the small blind next hand.
2 - The button knocks the big blind out. Small blind gets the button and pays the small blind again next hand.
3 - Small blind knocks the big blind out. What happened to you happens.
4 - Small blind knocks the button out. Big blind gets the button and pays the small blind.
5 - Big blind knocks the small blind out. Big blind gets the button and pays the small blind.
6 - Big blind knocks the button out. Big blind gets the button and pays the small blind.

There's only six ways the elimination can happen so there's not really much room for "Yeah but my situation was different" judgement calls. And in every case the player that inherits the button pays the small blind for the first hand of heads up.

FWIW the Tournament Directors' Association rule is the exact same in intent, if not the exact wording:

These are basically the two bibles of poker rules, and neither provides an exception for a dead small blind at the start of heads up play. They just say "put the button in the right place, and the button pays the small blind". If there was an exception to that rule, they'd state it.

If this is true, then in my opinion, the reason there isn't an exception is because no one has ever considered it. This is why the wsop has a rule which basically says:

Sometimes, unusual circumstances occur that are not covered by the rules and in these cases, the tournament director will make a ruling that is in the best fairness of the game.

It just seems to me that forcing someone to post a small blind on two consecutive hands gives the other player an unfair advantage.

It doesn't matter. The button is ALWAYS the small blind in heads up. The rules change when you're heads up.

cxmacleod said:

If this is true, then in my opinion, the reason there isn't an exception is because no one has ever considered it.

Click to expand...

Yeah... no. The reason I made my second post was to point out that this isn't a rare occurrence - it's been happening one in every six times a tournament goes from three-handed to heads up since poker tournaments began. Your situation will be repeated in 16.67%* of all tournaments played.

That's an awful lot of tournaments, and hardly an "unusual circumstance" that would warrant a tournament director invoking his power to break the technical rules.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy that this is a special case or that this situation has flown under the radar for many years and the only reason there's no exception is because nobody's ever considered it. The fact is it has been considered in thousands of tournaments over many years and this is the way it's done.



* allow a small degree of latitude in that number for tournaments that have two eliminations in the same hand while four-handed and so on.