For the record

There was a bit of controversy last night. Both Crystal & Nick went all in simultaneously. Crystal lost her's first, followed almost immediately by Nick. The ruling of the house awarded Crystal 2 points and Nick 3. As explained by the following, the results were correct but for the wrong reasons. Thanks Adam for researching this. Should this happen in the future, this is how it will be resolved. However, this can be avoided by the table announcing loudly that a player is all in thus stopping play at the other table until the all in hand is resolved.

I figured this might be worth posting on the blog and making the official rule if it ever comes up again. After some digging on the rule if people at different tables are all-in simultaneously....We came to the right result in awarding Nick 8th place, but for the wrong reasoning. Here's the rule: At critical stages of the tournament (e.g. where the prize money jumps significantly with the next few players eliminated) and when there is more than one table remaining, the tournament may be played "hand-for-hand". This means that if one table finishes its hand before the other table(s), that table waits for the other table(s) to finish before the next hand is dealt. During this hand-for-hand period, all bustouts during a "synchronized" hand (even at different tables) are treated as having happened on the same hand, for purposes of determining finish order. Finishing order is then based on comparing stack sizes per rule #5, and not on who lost his chips earlier. Now, rule 5: If two or more players are eliminated on the same hand, the player with more chips at the beginning of the hand is placed higher. If players started the hands with an identical amount of chips, both players tie for that rank, and any prizes due to those players will be equally distributed between them. During hand-for-hand play (as described in rule #20 below), two players eliminated during a single "synchronized" hand are treated as having been eliminated on the same hand, even if they are at different tables. So, in the case of last night, Nick started his all-in hand with more chips than Crystal, giving him the higher place. Nick's all-in came as the result of a long-drawn out hand, and he probably had about 400 in chips at the start of the hand. Crystal, if I'm not mistaken, went all-in with considerably less pre-flop. It is because of that - not the order of who called all-in - that gave Nick the extra point.

ADDENDUM
(perhaps this will clear up any confusion)
FROM ADAM
Actually, according to the rules, the correct thing last night was for our table to finish the hand in play (since it had already started), rather than stopping for Crystal's all-in. We had already seen a turn when Crystal called all-in, so we were obligated to finish that hand. Now, once we finished the hand, we would be obligated to pause until your table had finished Crystal's all-in. So here's the rule that I propose (basically the rule used for tournaments, but in simpler terms): If a player at Table A goes all in while Table B has a hand in progress, Table B will finish its hand. Once Table B has completed that hand, it will pause until Table A resolves its all-in. Once Table A has resolved its all-in, play will resume at both tables. If a player at Table B goes all-in during the hand in progress, it will be ruled a simultaneous all-in. If both players are eliminated, the two players will be placed according to their chip stacks going into the hand which put them all-in. Simply put: if a player at one table goes all-in, the other table should finish their hand, and then pause for the all-in. In the case of last night, this would have allowed Nick and I to finish our hand (one in which we both had flushes) without disruption or distraction. It could have been a disadvantage to one of us to have the play broken up mid-hand to see Crystal's all-in.